PR Chari
In a barely noticed event, forty bishops, scholars and activists had gathered in the Catholic University of Notre Dame in end-April to explore how the world could
eliminate nuclear weapons. University President Rev Jenkins cited Pope John XIII’s message after the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) that “nuclear weapons are morally
tolerable only for the purpose of nuclear deterrence, and even then, only as a step on the way toward progressive disarmament.”
Apropos, non-proliferation advocates had met in New York in May 2014 for a two-week Preparatory Committee meeting to pave the way for the NPT Review
Conference in 2015. The bland statement issued by them after their confabulations urged the nuclear weapon states (NWS) to hasten their efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament in an "irreversible, transparent and verifiable manner," as envisaged in Article VI of the NPT. However, the preparatory meeting also expressed its disappointment that a conference to discuss the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East, visualised at the last NPT Review
Conference in 2010, has not yet been held. It is no secret that this proposal is directed against Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal, which has motivated its regional neighbours to stockpile chemical
and biological weapons to deter Israel. More distressingly, the Preparatory Committee meeting could not even negotiate a final document for being placed
before the 2015 NPT Review Conference.
In other negative developments, India, though not a NPT signatory, has revealed that it had tested an intermediate-range ballistic missile from an underwater
platform. They are planned to equip its nuclear submarine INS Arihant. North Korea has declared that it means to carry out a fourth nuclear test. Analysts
believe this would accelerate Pyongyang’s development of a miniaturised warhead to be delivered by a ballistic missile. South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye warned
that another nuclear test by Pyongyang would trigger a “nuclear domino” effect, since both South Korea and Japan would be under great domestic pressure from
their alarmed people to develop and deploy nuclear weapons to deter North Korea. Neither country is believed to be very far from becoming a nuclear weapon
power if they so choose in view of their advanced atomic energy programmes. Efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear progress by bringing its uranium enrichment
programme under safeguards have received a setback with the rise of Islamic (Sunni) forces in Syria and Iraq. Iran is needed to balance these disruptive forces. Its ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons might, therefore, get placed on the backburner. Should Iran go nuclear a
“nuclear domino” effect could ensue in the Gulf and Middle East regions with many regional countries seeking nuclear weapons to deter Iran. Further, the technological abilities of several developing countries
have been growing rapidly. Non-proliferation efforts cannot succeed much longer by gating the spread of technology, but require the difficult political issues
driving nuclear proliferation to be addressed.
In its latest Annual Report on Armament and Disarmament the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has assessed the total number of nuclear weapons worldwide to be around
16,300, with 93 per cent being held by the US and Russia. The remaining are held by the seven other NWS viz. UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. SIPRI has noted that India and Pakistan continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles, and that there is no” genuine willingness to work toward complete
dismantlement of their nuclear arsenals. The long term modernization programs under way in these states suggest that nuclear weapons will remain deeply
embedded elements of their strategic calculus.” The modernisation of the nuclear arsenals held by the US and Russia like in the sphere of missile defense has gained much attention, but the steady efforts being
made by other NWS to improve their arsenals proceed under the radar screen. Naturally, the non-nuclear adherents to the NPT view these developments askance,
and their resentments could surface in the 2015 Review Conference with threats to withdraw from the NPT. The question now arises whether nuclear non- proliferation is a lost cause and whether nuclear
disarmament remains a desirable but elusive goal? The simple answer to this despairing question is “No.” Why?
Nuclear weapons are different in that they can effect global destruction in very short time frames; the consequent radiation effects would last for centuries And, this massive devastation could occur, not by
deliberate use, but by accident. The nuclear age is replete with examples of near-misses that could have led to the use of nuclear weapons by misapprehension or inadvertence. Nuclear theology urges that these weapons are irreplaceable to provide deterrence against adversaries. But reliance on nuclear weapons is hazardous and is becoming less effective with the
passing years. Again, why? There is little controversy that, at present, the main security threat to nations arises from terrorism and non-military threats like climate change or migration. Nuclear weapons have no utility to meet
them.
22 Jul 2014
INDIA- BANGLADESH: AFTER SUSHMA SWARAJ'S VISIT
Delwar Hossain
Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made an official visit to Bangladesh as her maiden standaloneboverseas tour from 25 to 27 June, 2014 – which was
termed by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) as “extremely fruitful and satisfying.” The spokesperson of the MEA added that Swaraj was returning with an
understanding that “it is an excellent beginning in addressing each others’ concerns and work together with the spirit of good neighbourliness.” It was one of
the rare comprehensive visits by any Indian External Affairs Minister to Bangladesh.
There was an extraordinary effort to reach out to the people of Bangladesh. Swaraj held a series of meetings with the top leadership in Bangladesh including the
President Abdul Hamid, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the Leader of the Opposition, Raushan Ershad, and the
former leader of the opposition and the President of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Khaleda Zia, and held delegation-level talks with her Bangladeshi
counterpart A. H. Mahmud Ali. Her meeting with Khaleda Zia has been a notable event considering the troubled nature of domestic politics in Bangladesh.
Despite her high profile official meetings and engagement, what has become extremely significant during her visit was her speech to the civil society audience organised by the Bangladesh Institute of
International and Strategic Studies (BIISS). It drew attention of the elite across the sections of society in Bangladesh. She was able to communicate with the
people about the new Indian government’s view on Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh have enormous interests about the perspectives and strategies of the
new Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Quite rightly so the current Bangladesh government has worked with India’s Dr. Manmohan
Singh administration in its last term when both Dhaka and New Delhi went an extra mile to reduce gaps and embark upon new and bold initiatives to strengthen
bilateral relations. The people of Bangladesh want to see a smooth journey to stronger ties between the two
nations based on the existing friendly relations.
Political circles in Bangladesh are sharply divided on the
impact of Sushma Swaraj’s visit on domestic politics of
the country. Experts and activists leaning towards the
opposition parties termed the visit as a paradigm shift in India’s role in the matrix of political forces in Bangladesh. One analyst argued that the visit outlined
the parameters within which the Bharatiya Janata Partyb(BJP) government will conduct bilateral relations with Bangladesh. It is marked by a major step away from the
way the Congress did. He further adds that New Delhi will not play any favorites and relations will be between
country-to-country and government-to-government.
Conversely, pro-government elites claim that the visit was hugely positive for the current government. Thebemphasis on government-to-government relations or
focus on building strong institutions and promoting abculture of tolerance, inclusion and respect for differencesbstrengthen the ruling political regime’s positions. More
importantly, in the realm of foreign policy it is not the priority of any government to influence domestic politics for the sake of domestic politics. Instead, it is national
interests that dictate terms. Therefore, the visit rightly prioritised on the issue of boosting bilateral ties where both the government and the opposition have stakes.
Swaraj’s speech on “India-Bangladesh Relations: A Framework for Cooperation” at the BIISS gathering has been widely discussed in Bangladesh’s civil society. In
her speech, Swaraj emphasised on comprehensive and equitable partnership, mutually beneficial relations, youth development and youth-led development, people– to-people to contact, and inter-linkages to move forward in South Asia. She referred to the fact that both India and Bangladesh shed blood together in 1971 and
she did not forget to mention Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the architect of Bangladesh. The Minister enthralled the audience in Dhaka as she spoke,
“I come to Bangladesh with a message of friendship and goodwill from the newly elected Government in India. I come with the goal of enhancing our relationship and
mutual understanding. I come with the belief that the potential of our partnership is vast. I come with the faith that the people of both our countries desire and deserve closer relations and concrete results…. Our
desire is that India and Bangladesh should flourish together as two equal partners. We share not just our past but also our future.”
It is less than a month since Swaraj visited Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the two nations witnessed another game changing moment in their bilateral relations when a verdict from the UN’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) based in The Hague was delivered on 7 July 2014. The verdict resolved the long standing maritime
dispute between Dhaka and New Delhi. The sharing of the disputed maritime region has been the essence of the verdict which both the nations have already identified as a new step towards building strong
partnership between the two countries. However, a section of people in Bangladesh have been out to malign the verdict by raising the issue of the South Talpatti Island. They argue that Bangladesh has lost its claim on this historic island that was quickly dismissed by the maritime law experts in the country. Following
Swaraj’s visit, the PCA verdict on maritime boundary dispute is another milestone in consolidating Bangladesh-India bilateral relations.
Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made an official visit to Bangladesh as her maiden standaloneboverseas tour from 25 to 27 June, 2014 – which was
termed by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) as “extremely fruitful and satisfying.” The spokesperson of the MEA added that Swaraj was returning with an
understanding that “it is an excellent beginning in addressing each others’ concerns and work together with the spirit of good neighbourliness.” It was one of
the rare comprehensive visits by any Indian External Affairs Minister to Bangladesh.
There was an extraordinary effort to reach out to the people of Bangladesh. Swaraj held a series of meetings with the top leadership in Bangladesh including the
President Abdul Hamid, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the Leader of the Opposition, Raushan Ershad, and the
former leader of the opposition and the President of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Khaleda Zia, and held delegation-level talks with her Bangladeshi
counterpart A. H. Mahmud Ali. Her meeting with Khaleda Zia has been a notable event considering the troubled nature of domestic politics in Bangladesh.
Despite her high profile official meetings and engagement, what has become extremely significant during her visit was her speech to the civil society audience organised by the Bangladesh Institute of
International and Strategic Studies (BIISS). It drew attention of the elite across the sections of society in Bangladesh. She was able to communicate with the
people about the new Indian government’s view on Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh have enormous interests about the perspectives and strategies of the
new Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Quite rightly so the current Bangladesh government has worked with India’s Dr. Manmohan
Singh administration in its last term when both Dhaka and New Delhi went an extra mile to reduce gaps and embark upon new and bold initiatives to strengthen
bilateral relations. The people of Bangladesh want to see a smooth journey to stronger ties between the two
nations based on the existing friendly relations.
Political circles in Bangladesh are sharply divided on the
impact of Sushma Swaraj’s visit on domestic politics of
the country. Experts and activists leaning towards the
opposition parties termed the visit as a paradigm shift in India’s role in the matrix of political forces in Bangladesh. One analyst argued that the visit outlined
the parameters within which the Bharatiya Janata Partyb(BJP) government will conduct bilateral relations with Bangladesh. It is marked by a major step away from the
way the Congress did. He further adds that New Delhi will not play any favorites and relations will be between
country-to-country and government-to-government.
Conversely, pro-government elites claim that the visit was hugely positive for the current government. Thebemphasis on government-to-government relations or
focus on building strong institutions and promoting abculture of tolerance, inclusion and respect for differencesbstrengthen the ruling political regime’s positions. More
importantly, in the realm of foreign policy it is not the priority of any government to influence domestic politics for the sake of domestic politics. Instead, it is national
interests that dictate terms. Therefore, the visit rightly prioritised on the issue of boosting bilateral ties where both the government and the opposition have stakes.
Swaraj’s speech on “India-Bangladesh Relations: A Framework for Cooperation” at the BIISS gathering has been widely discussed in Bangladesh’s civil society. In
her speech, Swaraj emphasised on comprehensive and equitable partnership, mutually beneficial relations, youth development and youth-led development, people– to-people to contact, and inter-linkages to move forward in South Asia. She referred to the fact that both India and Bangladesh shed blood together in 1971 and
she did not forget to mention Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the architect of Bangladesh. The Minister enthralled the audience in Dhaka as she spoke,
“I come to Bangladesh with a message of friendship and goodwill from the newly elected Government in India. I come with the goal of enhancing our relationship and
mutual understanding. I come with the belief that the potential of our partnership is vast. I come with the faith that the people of both our countries desire and deserve closer relations and concrete results…. Our
desire is that India and Bangladesh should flourish together as two equal partners. We share not just our past but also our future.”
It is less than a month since Swaraj visited Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the two nations witnessed another game changing moment in their bilateral relations when a verdict from the UN’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) based in The Hague was delivered on 7 July 2014. The verdict resolved the long standing maritime
dispute between Dhaka and New Delhi. The sharing of the disputed maritime region has been the essence of the verdict which both the nations have already identified as a new step towards building strong
partnership between the two countries. However, a section of people in Bangladesh have been out to malign the verdict by raising the issue of the South Talpatti Island. They argue that Bangladesh has lost its claim on this historic island that was quickly dismissed by the maritime law experts in the country. Following
Swaraj’s visit, the PCA verdict on maritime boundary dispute is another milestone in consolidating Bangladesh-India bilateral relations.
INDIAN RATIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL: MISCHIEVOUS REPORTS MISS ITS SIGNIFICANCE
Manpreet Sethi
On 26-27 June 2014, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) held its plenary meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The
discussion on India’s membership was reportedly on the agenda. Meanwhile, on 23 June, India announced its decision to ratify the Protocol Additional to the Agreement between the Government of India and the
IAEA for the application of safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities (AP). India has been progressively, and on schedule, been implementing the Separation Plan
accepted in 2006 as part of the process of India’s exceptionalisation and conclusion of the India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Ratification of the AP
was one of the last few major commitments, even though the document itself had been expeditiously concluded in July 2009. The conclusion of this formality too now marks the end of India’s fulfillment of its
promises in exchange for its entry into international nuclear commerce.
The idea and logic of India’s exceptionalisation, however, has still not been accepted by many non- proliferation hardliners in the US and other Western
capitals, irrespective of the myriad steps that have been taken by India. Not surprisingly, therefore, mischievous
reports on India’s nuclear activities surface at opportune times. Expectedly, just before the NSG meeting that was to consider India’s membership, IHS Jane’s sprung an article alleging that India was “expanding a covert uranium enrichment plant that
could potentially support the development of thermonuclear weapons.”
The timing and content of the report was mischievous on two fronts: first, from the point of view of the impending consideration of India’s NSG membership;
and second, from the point of view of drawing attention away from the import of the ratification of the AP by
India.
India's uranium enrichment plant at Rattenhalli, Mysore,
is not covert. It has been well known for decades and is
meant to meet the low enriched uranium fuel
requirements of nuclear powered submarines. India’s
nuclear doctrine, based as it is on the threat of assured
retaliation, requires a sea-based deterrent capability to
support a credible no first use. This, in fact, is a
requirement much greater than the need for a large
arsenal of thermonuclear weapons. It is the assuredness
of retaliation to cause unacceptable damage that is
necessary to deter, and even non-thermonuclear
weapons can wreak such damage given the density of
population in this part of the world. Therefore, India's
enriched uranium requirements are of greater criticality
for assuring survivability through a credible SSBN fleet,
than for building an arsenal of thermonuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the Indian ratification of the AP is not an
insignificant development. Since 1997, when the AP was
first concluded as a tool for strengthening the IAEA
safeguards system in the wake of the suspected
weapons programmes in states of proliferation concern,
the AP has been ratified by 123 countries. It is considered a necessary confidence building measure in providing assurance on the exclusively peaceful nature
of a national nuclear programme. The US has been amongst the forerunners seeking its universalisation as a pre-condition for civilian nuclear cooperation.
There are three types of APs – the Model AP with Non- nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) that accept comprehensive safeguards; Voluntary Offer Agreements
with Nuclear Weapon States (NWS); and a version of the Model AP with other States prepared to accept measures provided for in the Model AP. India is the only
‘other State’ that has offered to accept an AP tailored to its specificities but that would pursue safeguards effectiveness and efficiency.
In the case of India, not only does the AP grant special
rights to the IAEA to conduct inspections (such as the
right to declare any Agency official as an inspector, grant of multiple entry visas to facilitate short-notice/ surprise inspections, and unrestricted unattended
monitoring on civilian designated sites), but also reinforces India’s commitment to ensure that its export controls conform to the best international standards. Of
course, there are some provisions of the Model AP that are applicable to the NNWS that do not form a part of the Indian AP. But this is hardly surprising given India’s
particular circumstances. Critics forget India’s exceptional circumstances which necessitated the exceptionalisation in the first place. This in no way undermines India’s intention of placing its declared
facilities under IAEA oversight. Of course, there will be others that remain outside the IAEA purview, just as there are in other states with nuclear weapons. The APs
of all NWS have conditioned access on the basis of national security exclusions.
However, fears that India will use/expand these to indulge in an arms race or for accumulating a large arsenal belie a complete lack of understanding of India’s
concept of nuclear deterrence. Credible minimum deterrence and no first use are the basic attributes of the Indian nuclear doctrine. These are alien to most
Western analysts who cannot understand that India has no need to indulge in a foolhardy exercise of warhead accumulation seeking parity or superiority.
As a believer in the security benefits of non-proliferation, even as a Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) non-member,
India has displayed more conformity with the letter and spirit of the NPT than many of its subscribers. Its participation in the IAEA safeguards regime by extending
enhanced safeguards on an expanding nuclear programme, and committing India to export controls as also international safety and security standards only
adds to this.
On 26-27 June 2014, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) held its plenary meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The
discussion on India’s membership was reportedly on the agenda. Meanwhile, on 23 June, India announced its decision to ratify the Protocol Additional to the Agreement between the Government of India and the
IAEA for the application of safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities (AP). India has been progressively, and on schedule, been implementing the Separation Plan
accepted in 2006 as part of the process of India’s exceptionalisation and conclusion of the India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Ratification of the AP
was one of the last few major commitments, even though the document itself had been expeditiously concluded in July 2009. The conclusion of this formality too now marks the end of India’s fulfillment of its
promises in exchange for its entry into international nuclear commerce.
The idea and logic of India’s exceptionalisation, however, has still not been accepted by many non- proliferation hardliners in the US and other Western
capitals, irrespective of the myriad steps that have been taken by India. Not surprisingly, therefore, mischievous
reports on India’s nuclear activities surface at opportune times. Expectedly, just before the NSG meeting that was to consider India’s membership, IHS Jane’s sprung an article alleging that India was “expanding a covert uranium enrichment plant that
could potentially support the development of thermonuclear weapons.”
The timing and content of the report was mischievous on two fronts: first, from the point of view of the impending consideration of India’s NSG membership;
and second, from the point of view of drawing attention away from the import of the ratification of the AP by
India.
India's uranium enrichment plant at Rattenhalli, Mysore,
is not covert. It has been well known for decades and is
meant to meet the low enriched uranium fuel
requirements of nuclear powered submarines. India’s
nuclear doctrine, based as it is on the threat of assured
retaliation, requires a sea-based deterrent capability to
support a credible no first use. This, in fact, is a
requirement much greater than the need for a large
arsenal of thermonuclear weapons. It is the assuredness
of retaliation to cause unacceptable damage that is
necessary to deter, and even non-thermonuclear
weapons can wreak such damage given the density of
population in this part of the world. Therefore, India's
enriched uranium requirements are of greater criticality
for assuring survivability through a credible SSBN fleet,
than for building an arsenal of thermonuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the Indian ratification of the AP is not an
insignificant development. Since 1997, when the AP was
first concluded as a tool for strengthening the IAEA
safeguards system in the wake of the suspected
weapons programmes in states of proliferation concern,
the AP has been ratified by 123 countries. It is considered a necessary confidence building measure in providing assurance on the exclusively peaceful nature
of a national nuclear programme. The US has been amongst the forerunners seeking its universalisation as a pre-condition for civilian nuclear cooperation.
There are three types of APs – the Model AP with Non- nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) that accept comprehensive safeguards; Voluntary Offer Agreements
with Nuclear Weapon States (NWS); and a version of the Model AP with other States prepared to accept measures provided for in the Model AP. India is the only
‘other State’ that has offered to accept an AP tailored to its specificities but that would pursue safeguards effectiveness and efficiency.
In the case of India, not only does the AP grant special
rights to the IAEA to conduct inspections (such as the
right to declare any Agency official as an inspector, grant of multiple entry visas to facilitate short-notice/ surprise inspections, and unrestricted unattended
monitoring on civilian designated sites), but also reinforces India’s commitment to ensure that its export controls conform to the best international standards. Of
course, there are some provisions of the Model AP that are applicable to the NNWS that do not form a part of the Indian AP. But this is hardly surprising given India’s
particular circumstances. Critics forget India’s exceptional circumstances which necessitated the exceptionalisation in the first place. This in no way undermines India’s intention of placing its declared
facilities under IAEA oversight. Of course, there will be others that remain outside the IAEA purview, just as there are in other states with nuclear weapons. The APs
of all NWS have conditioned access on the basis of national security exclusions.
However, fears that India will use/expand these to indulge in an arms race or for accumulating a large arsenal belie a complete lack of understanding of India’s
concept of nuclear deterrence. Credible minimum deterrence and no first use are the basic attributes of the Indian nuclear doctrine. These are alien to most
Western analysts who cannot understand that India has no need to indulge in a foolhardy exercise of warhead accumulation seeking parity or superiority.
As a believer in the security benefits of non-proliferation, even as a Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) non-member,
India has displayed more conformity with the letter and spirit of the NPT than many of its subscribers. Its participation in the IAEA safeguards regime by extending
enhanced safeguards on an expanding nuclear programme, and committing India to export controls as also international safety and security standards only
adds to this.
DOMESTIC POLITICKING IN PAKISTAN: IT'S NOT CRICKET,STUPID!
Sushant Sareen
For someone whose understanding of politics is limited to drawing banal cricketing analogies, the phrase ‘it’s
not cricket’ aptly describes the sort of politics Imran Khan is indulging in these days. His threat of leading a ‘Long March’ (how Mao must be twisting in his grave
over the Pakistani mutilation of the original Long March) to Islamabad to shake up the political system – he is himself isn’t clear on what he actually wants – is not cricket because it brazenly violates the basic rules
of the political game set in the constitution. It is also not cricket in the sense that a five year term in government is not the same as a five-day test match in which the two contending sides get to play two innings
each.
That Khan isn’t clear on what he hopes to get out of
the ‘Long March’ (or is it Tsunami March or Azadi
March?) is evident because he keeps shifting the
goalposts depending on what catches his fancy at a
particular time. He started with demanding a vote
verification in four constituencies, went on to demand a
mid-term election, retracted to demanding an audit of
the entire election (inspired by Afghanistan). The end-
game – how he hopes to get his demand met, what he
will do if the government continues to stonewall, and
what the consequences of any widespread disturbance
in Islamabad could be, including the outside chance of a
derailment of the democratic process – has obviously
not been thought through by him. Not only is his timing
wrong (barely a year after the general election he is
demanding a mid-term poll), he has also not factored in
the possibility that even if he managed to grab power,
he would then be faced with similar efforts to overthrow
him. In other words, it will be back to the sordid politics
of the 1990s.
Imran Khan suddenly became hyperactive against the
government after the military establishment seemed to
get into a tussle with incumbent Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif’s government leading many analysts to suspect
that he had been put up to the task by the powers that
be. Despite being seen as riding on the back of the
military to queer the pitch for the Nawaz Sharif
government, Imran Khan was careful to keep parroting
his commitment to democracy, even though he is doing
everything to undermine it. Even if he can’t force the
Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PMLN) out of office
through his agitation, he would have weakened the
civilian dispensation to a point where it would be forced
to lean on the crutches of the military, or at least
remain extremely diffident, before the military. That the
PMLN government has come to such a pass with just
about a year in office is a sorry statement on the
fragility of the democratic process in Pakistan.
It is not just Imran Khan who is on the march against
the government. The somewhat comical cleric from
Canada, Tahirul Qadri, has also been on the warpath,
selling an instant revolution to his acolytes as if it were
some kind of instant coffee. Politically, Qadri is a non-
entity. But like many other God-men, and such like in
the subcontinent, Qadri has his following which probably
runs into a million or more. His game is even less
nuanced than Khan’s because he makes no bones about
completely overthrowing the system. Ironically, he calls
his ‘revolution’ legal and constitutional! Qadri has been
given a leg up by the horribly botched strong-arm used
by the PMLN government against Qadri’s Lahore
headquarters, killing around a dozen people and injuring
some 100 in police firing.
Individually, however, neither Qadri nor Khan can oust
the government. Hence, efforts by quintessential
establishment flunkies and Tonga politicians (whose
support base can fit on a horse-driven Tonga) like the
Chaudaries of Gujarat and Sheikh Rasheed of
Rawalpindi to bring them together. But this appears to
be an uphill task because while Khan has some kind of
a stake in the system, Qadri is a misguided missile
seeking to destroy everything without any clear idea of
how and what to replace it with. What is more, they
have their problems on who will lead and their
suspicions on who will retreat first leaving the other in
the lurch. Meanwhile, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)
which was fast becoming irrelevant and leaderless, with Asif Zardari in his bunker, Bilawal active only on twitter
and the party is disarray, disunited (especially in Punjab) and directionless, has also started making noises against the government and in support of Khan.
But even if the PPP joined the opposition ranks, unless the army casts its lot with the forces arraigned against the government, it is unlikely that Sharif would lose power anytime soon.
Despite its problems with the government, the army
doesn’t seem quite ready to either force mid-term
elections, or usher in a medium-term interim
government of technocrats, or even take over power
directly. Even the praetorian Pakistan army knows that
doing any such thing would tantamount to jumping from
the frying pan into the fire. It would rather put up with
a weak government that subordinates itself to the
military than tempt fate or worse by destabilising the
government or ousting it. Of course, if massive
disturbances break out as a result of the agitations
being planned by Khan, Qadri and Co. then all bets are
off. If things come to such a pass, then Imran Khan will
have to cool his heels in the pavilion, his dreams and delusions of leading Pakistan shattered.
The most remarkable thing in the unfolding political drama in Pakistan is the swiftness with which Nawaz Sharif has lost political capital and managed to box himself into a corner because of wrong political decisions. He could still recover lost ground, but that
will require political cunning, coolness and compromise, none of the things he is known for.
For someone whose understanding of politics is limited to drawing banal cricketing analogies, the phrase ‘it’s
not cricket’ aptly describes the sort of politics Imran Khan is indulging in these days. His threat of leading a ‘Long March’ (how Mao must be twisting in his grave
over the Pakistani mutilation of the original Long March) to Islamabad to shake up the political system – he is himself isn’t clear on what he actually wants – is not cricket because it brazenly violates the basic rules
of the political game set in the constitution. It is also not cricket in the sense that a five year term in government is not the same as a five-day test match in which the two contending sides get to play two innings
each.
That Khan isn’t clear on what he hopes to get out of
the ‘Long March’ (or is it Tsunami March or Azadi
March?) is evident because he keeps shifting the
goalposts depending on what catches his fancy at a
particular time. He started with demanding a vote
verification in four constituencies, went on to demand a
mid-term election, retracted to demanding an audit of
the entire election (inspired by Afghanistan). The end-
game – how he hopes to get his demand met, what he
will do if the government continues to stonewall, and
what the consequences of any widespread disturbance
in Islamabad could be, including the outside chance of a
derailment of the democratic process – has obviously
not been thought through by him. Not only is his timing
wrong (barely a year after the general election he is
demanding a mid-term poll), he has also not factored in
the possibility that even if he managed to grab power,
he would then be faced with similar efforts to overthrow
him. In other words, it will be back to the sordid politics
of the 1990s.
Imran Khan suddenly became hyperactive against the
government after the military establishment seemed to
get into a tussle with incumbent Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif’s government leading many analysts to suspect
that he had been put up to the task by the powers that
be. Despite being seen as riding on the back of the
military to queer the pitch for the Nawaz Sharif
government, Imran Khan was careful to keep parroting
his commitment to democracy, even though he is doing
everything to undermine it. Even if he can’t force the
Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PMLN) out of office
through his agitation, he would have weakened the
civilian dispensation to a point where it would be forced
to lean on the crutches of the military, or at least
remain extremely diffident, before the military. That the
PMLN government has come to such a pass with just
about a year in office is a sorry statement on the
fragility of the democratic process in Pakistan.
It is not just Imran Khan who is on the march against
the government. The somewhat comical cleric from
Canada, Tahirul Qadri, has also been on the warpath,
selling an instant revolution to his acolytes as if it were
some kind of instant coffee. Politically, Qadri is a non-
entity. But like many other God-men, and such like in
the subcontinent, Qadri has his following which probably
runs into a million or more. His game is even less
nuanced than Khan’s because he makes no bones about
completely overthrowing the system. Ironically, he calls
his ‘revolution’ legal and constitutional! Qadri has been
given a leg up by the horribly botched strong-arm used
by the PMLN government against Qadri’s Lahore
headquarters, killing around a dozen people and injuring
some 100 in police firing.
Individually, however, neither Qadri nor Khan can oust
the government. Hence, efforts by quintessential
establishment flunkies and Tonga politicians (whose
support base can fit on a horse-driven Tonga) like the
Chaudaries of Gujarat and Sheikh Rasheed of
Rawalpindi to bring them together. But this appears to
be an uphill task because while Khan has some kind of
a stake in the system, Qadri is a misguided missile
seeking to destroy everything without any clear idea of
how and what to replace it with. What is more, they
have their problems on who will lead and their
suspicions on who will retreat first leaving the other in
the lurch. Meanwhile, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)
which was fast becoming irrelevant and leaderless, with Asif Zardari in his bunker, Bilawal active only on twitter
and the party is disarray, disunited (especially in Punjab) and directionless, has also started making noises against the government and in support of Khan.
But even if the PPP joined the opposition ranks, unless the army casts its lot with the forces arraigned against the government, it is unlikely that Sharif would lose power anytime soon.
Despite its problems with the government, the army
doesn’t seem quite ready to either force mid-term
elections, or usher in a medium-term interim
government of technocrats, or even take over power
directly. Even the praetorian Pakistan army knows that
doing any such thing would tantamount to jumping from
the frying pan into the fire. It would rather put up with
a weak government that subordinates itself to the
military than tempt fate or worse by destabilising the
government or ousting it. Of course, if massive
disturbances break out as a result of the agitations
being planned by Khan, Qadri and Co. then all bets are
off. If things come to such a pass, then Imran Khan will
have to cool his heels in the pavilion, his dreams and delusions of leading Pakistan shattered.
The most remarkable thing in the unfolding political drama in Pakistan is the swiftness with which Nawaz Sharif has lost political capital and managed to box himself into a corner because of wrong political decisions. He could still recover lost ground, but that
will require political cunning, coolness and compromise, none of the things he is known for.
18 Jul 2014
IS OBAMA WAGING JIHAD?
Wayne Root
Not a week goes by that I'm not called or
emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we
have a foreigner and Muslim in the White
House. I've disagreed for six years now. We
have to take our President at his word. He
says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he
is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are
both Marxists and radical Muslim
sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one
of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime.
Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid
Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines
a Marxist? Someone who believes in
government control over the people. Someone
whose obsession is income redistribution.
Someone who dedicates his life to taxes,
spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy.
Since Obama is the biggest spender in history,
the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt
creator in history, and the biggest creator of
regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is
a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my
new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer
part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and
chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies
led to the Arab Spring. His policies have
certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His
approval rating in Israel at times has been
close to zero. His policies have emboldened
our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq
has led to the creation of a radical Islamic
state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to
Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet
never says a peep in defense of Christianity or
Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his
thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me,
"Don't listen to a man's words, watch his
actions." Americans are starting to wake up to
this reality. A recent NBC poll showed
Americans find Obama less trustworthy than
Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a
few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most
persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated
religious group in the world today is
Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and
many Christians killed by the Muslim
Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians
were pulled from their homes and murdered
execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in
Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian
churches being burned and Christians
murdered in Muslim countries around the
world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical
Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in
Syria and lectured us all on not being
prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted
desperately to put US troops in harm's way to
fight in this civil war that is none of our
business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals
banned carolers from singing Christmas songs,
banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained
the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to
accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards
from local school children because the cards
included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or
“God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some
military funerals. Christian military chaplains
have been harassed and banned from praying
in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the
Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden
religious ministers from participating in prayer
services on federal property. Christian minister
Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort
to ban him and other Christian leaders from
the National Day of Prayer observance at the
Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to
stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible
verses they wrote on their own personal dorm
room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military
lawyers claim the First Amendment does not
include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama
administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric
entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city
hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on
record as calling for the death penalty for
gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . .
and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border.
50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the
border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for
amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some
would call it an invasion). But the worst part is
that if 10-year-old children have figured out
they can just walk across the border, then so
have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may
already be in America because Obama chose
not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying
America from within by murdering the middle
class. But is there something even more
insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to
destroy America and murder the middle class,
to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-
Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll
let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-
born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation
otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it
gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of
our stomachs. Something is very wrong.
Everything we believe in…everything America
stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging
Jihad from inside the White House.
Not a week goes by that I'm not called or
emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we
have a foreigner and Muslim in the White
House. I've disagreed for six years now. We
have to take our President at his word. He
says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he
is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are
both Marxists and radical Muslim
sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one
of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime.
Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid
Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines
a Marxist? Someone who believes in
government control over the people. Someone
whose obsession is income redistribution.
Someone who dedicates his life to taxes,
spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy.
Since Obama is the biggest spender in history,
the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt
creator in history, and the biggest creator of
regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is
a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my
new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer
part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and
chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies
led to the Arab Spring. His policies have
certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His
approval rating in Israel at times has been
close to zero. His policies have emboldened
our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq
has led to the creation of a radical Islamic
state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to
Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet
never says a peep in defense of Christianity or
Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his
thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me,
"Don't listen to a man's words, watch his
actions." Americans are starting to wake up to
this reality. A recent NBC poll showed
Americans find Obama less trustworthy than
Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a
few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most
persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated
religious group in the world today is
Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and
many Christians killed by the Muslim
Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians
were pulled from their homes and murdered
execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in
Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian
churches being burned and Christians
murdered in Muslim countries around the
world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical
Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in
Syria and lectured us all on not being
prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted
desperately to put US troops in harm's way to
fight in this civil war that is none of our
business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals
banned carolers from singing Christmas songs,
banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained
the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to
accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards
from local school children because the cards
included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or
“God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some
military funerals. Christian military chaplains
have been harassed and banned from praying
in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the
Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden
religious ministers from participating in prayer
services on federal property. Christian minister
Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort
to ban him and other Christian leaders from
the National Day of Prayer observance at the
Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to
stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible
verses they wrote on their own personal dorm
room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military
lawyers claim the First Amendment does not
include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama
administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric
entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city
hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on
record as calling for the death penalty for
gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . .
and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border.
50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the
border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for
amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some
would call it an invasion). But the worst part is
that if 10-year-old children have figured out
they can just walk across the border, then so
have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may
already be in America because Obama chose
not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying
America from within by murdering the middle
class. But is there something even more
insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to
destroy America and murder the middle class,
to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-
Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll
let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-
born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation
otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it
gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of
our stomachs. Something is very wrong.
Everything we believe in…everything America
stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging
Jihad from inside the White House.
Not a week goes by that I'm not called or
emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we
have a foreigner and Muslim in the White
House. I've disagreed for six years now. We
have to take our President at his word. He
says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he
is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are
both Marxists and radical Muslim
sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one
of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime.
Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid
Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines
a Marxist? Someone who believes in
government control over the people. Someone
whose obsession is income redistribution.
Someone who dedicates his life to taxes,
spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy.
Since Obama is the biggest spender in history,
the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt
creator in history, and the biggest creator of
regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is
a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my
new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer
part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and
chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies
led to the Arab Spring. His policies have
certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His
approval rating in Israel at times has been
close to zero. His policies have emboldened
our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq
has led to the creation of a radical Islamic
state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to
Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet
never says a peep in defense of Christianity or
Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his
thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me,
"Don't listen to a man's words, watch his
actions." Americans are starting to wake up to
this reality. A recent NBC poll showed
Americans find Obama less trustworthy than
Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a
few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most
persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated
religious group in the world today is
Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and
many Christians killed by the Muslim
Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians
were pulled from their homes and murdered
execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in
Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian
churches being burned and Christians
murdered in Muslim countries around the
world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical
Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in
Syria and lectured us all on not being
prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted
desperately to put US troops in harm's way to
fight in this civil war that is none of our
business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals
banned carolers from singing Christmas songs,
banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained
the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to
accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards
from local school children because the cards
included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or
“God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some
military funerals. Christian military chaplains
have been harassed and banned from praying
in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the
Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden
religious ministers from participating in prayer
services on federal property. Christian minister
Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort
to ban him and other Christian leaders from
the National Day of Prayer observance at the
Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to
stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible
verses they wrote on their own personal dorm
room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military
lawyers claim the First Amendment does not
include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama
administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric
entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city
hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on
record as calling for the death penalty for
gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . .
and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border.
50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the
border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for
amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some
would call it an invasion). But the worst part is
that if 10-year-old children have figured out
they can just walk across the border, then so
have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may
already be in America because Obama chose
not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying
America from within by murdering the middle
class. But is there something even more
insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to
destroy America and murder the middle class,
to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-
Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll
let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-
born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation
otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it
gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of
our stomachs. Something is very wrong.
Everything we believe in…everything America
stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging
Jihad from inside the White House.
Not a week goes by that I'm not called or
emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we
have a foreigner and Muslim in the White
House. I've disagreed for six years now. We
have to take our President at his word. He
says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he
is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are
both Marxists and radical Muslim
sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one
of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime.
Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid
Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines
a Marxist? Someone who believes in
government control over the people. Someone
whose obsession is income redistribution.
Someone who dedicates his life to taxes,
spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy.
Since Obama is the biggest spender in history,
the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt
creator in history, and the biggest creator of
regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is
a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my
new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer
part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and
chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies
led to the Arab Spring. His policies have
certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His
approval rating in Israel at times has been
close to zero. His policies have emboldened
our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq
has led to the creation of a radical Islamic
state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to
Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet
never says a peep in defense of Christianity or
Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his
thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me,
"Don't listen to a man's words, watch his
actions." Americans are starting to wake up to
this reality. A recent NBC poll showed
Americans find Obama less trustworthy than
Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a
few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most
persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated
religious group in the world today is
Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and
many Christians killed by the Muslim
Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians
were pulled from their homes and murdered
execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in
Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian
churches being burned and Christians
murdered in Muslim countries around the
world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical
Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in
Syria and lectured us all on not being
prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted
desperately to put US troops in harm's way to
fight in this civil war that is none of our
business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals
banned carolers from singing Christmas songs,
banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained
the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to
accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards
from local school children because the cards
included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or
“God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some
military funerals. Christian military chaplains
have been harassed and banned from praying
in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the
Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden
religious ministers from participating in prayer
services on federal property. Christian minister
Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort
to ban him and other Christian leaders from
the National Day of Prayer observance at the
Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to
stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible
verses they wrote on their own personal dorm
room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military
lawyers claim the First Amendment does not
include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama
administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric
entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city
hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on
record as calling for the death penalty for
gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . .
and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border.
50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the
border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for
amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some
would call it an invasion). But the worst part is
that if 10-year-old children have figured out
they can just walk across the border, then so
have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may
already be in America because Obama chose
not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying
America from within by murdering the middle
class. But is there something even more
insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to
destroy America and murder the middle class,
to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-
Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll
let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-
born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation
otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it
gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of
our stomachs. Something is very wrong.
Everything we believe in…everything America
stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging
Jihad from inside the White House.
CHRISTIANS AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Jack Kerwick
If ever sober-minded folks thought that they
could take refuge in the Christian church from
the left-wing juggernaut that is our culture’s
zeitgeist, they can think this no more.
In the vestibule of the Lutheran church in
which my son’s summer camp is held, I
noticed that the most recent edition of The
Lutheran is devoted to the topic of “economic
inequality.”
Norma Cook Everist, a professor of church and
ministry, quotes Luther who wrote that “the
poor” are routinely “defrauded” by the rich.
Matters, she declares, are “no less” true
“today.”
Dividing, as it does, the world into “makers”
and “takers,” “inequality” fosters the invidious
fiction that some, including some people,
including “some children,” are “worth more
than all the rest.” This, though, contradicts the
Christian’s belief that we are all “created in
God’s image [.]”
“Congregations,” Everist writes, “need to
welcome, include and minister among people
across socioeconomic boundaries.” She assures
us that “we don’t need to fear those named ‘of
no worth’ becoming filled with power and
potential because,” she concludes, “together
we can become life-givers in the world.”
Where to begin?
For starters, the term “inequality” when used
in this context is both inaccurate and unfair.
“Equality” is a morally charged word. In this
respect it is not unlike “good,” “justice,”
“virtue,” and the like. Some of “the rich” that
Everist and her ilk loathe may know how to
cook their books, but Everist and her fellow
proponents of economic “equality” most
definitely know how to cook their arguments:
casting one’s position in the language of
“equality” is a sure-fire way of stacking the
deck in favor of one’s view from the outset.
That this is so becomes obvious once it’s
considered that the very same people who
incessantly bemoan “inequality” while arguing
for income and wealth redistribution are the
first to demand ever greater “diversity.” They
are the first to bludgeon us into “celebrating”
our differences.
Income/wealth “inequality,” however, is
diversity.
If we are going to promote real diversity, then
it is a foregone conclusion that there will be
differences, dramatic differences, in the life
choices that individuals make.
And this in turn means, necessarily, that there
will be staggering differences in the amount of
money that people earn, for among the choices
that people make throughout their lives is the
choice of, well, their livelihoods.
“Inequality,” in other words, is just the word
that the self-avowed champions of diversity
attribute to those instances of diversity that
aren’t to their liking.
If, as Professor Everist implies, those of us
who object to being coerced into working
longer hours for little to no pay for the sake of
realizing the redistributive scheme of some
ideologue’s imagination are the enemies of
“equality,” then she and her fellow travelers
are the enemies of diversity (to say nothing of
individuality and liberty).
Another critical point is that, whether by
accident or design, all too many contemporary
representatives of the church, like Professor
Everist, conflate the issue of “the poor” or “the
needy” with that of economic “inequality.” In
doing so, they radically misconstrue the
Gospel.
The parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable
more than any other designed to emblematize
the ideal of Christian charity, features a man
of considerable means—the Samaritan—who
deployed some of his ample resources to help
a stranger in need.
Jesus, in other words, held up a reasonably
well-to-do, and possibly even wealthy, man as
the model of Christian love.
Christ also praised a Roman soldier, a man,
mind you, who was sufficiently well off to
have servants, as displaying more faith than
anyone— including the impoverished to whom
He ministered—in all of Israel.
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were rich
members of the priestly class with whom Jesus
must’ve been particularly close, for not only
did they attempt to prevail upon their fellow
Pharisees to refrain from turning Jesus over to
the Romans. Following Jesus’ crucifixion, both
prepared His body for burial in the tomb that
Joseph secured for Him.
The Christian’s vocation is to care for the
needy, for those in need. And this could
include anyone— regardless of his or her
socioeconomic circumstances. Unfortunately,
whether Lutheran, Catholic, or otherwise, the
contemporary Christian church’s almost
exclusive emphasis on “the poor” comes at the
cost of reducing the non-poor, and certainly
the rich, to the status of non-persons. As such,
the latter are for practical purposes rendered
objects, yes, but not proper objects of agape,
of Christian love.
No, the tireless campaign to demonize “the
rich”—as well as those of us who are not rich
but who object to the demonization of the rich
and the socialist fantasies of the demagogues—
renders “the rich” just objects.
Of course a great portion of Jesus’ ministry
was spent ministering to the poor. Yet a great
deal was also expended upon attending to the
needs of the non-poor—as well as those of the
rich .
And none of it was spent on the issue of
“economic inequality.”
If ever sober-minded folks thought that they
could take refuge in the Christian church from
the left-wing juggernaut that is our culture’s
zeitgeist, they can think this no more.
In the vestibule of the Lutheran church in
which my son’s summer camp is held, I
noticed that the most recent edition of The
Lutheran is devoted to the topic of “economic
inequality.”
Norma Cook Everist, a professor of church and
ministry, quotes Luther who wrote that “the
poor” are routinely “defrauded” by the rich.
Matters, she declares, are “no less” true
“today.”
Dividing, as it does, the world into “makers”
and “takers,” “inequality” fosters the invidious
fiction that some, including some people,
including “some children,” are “worth more
than all the rest.” This, though, contradicts the
Christian’s belief that we are all “created in
God’s image [.]”
“Congregations,” Everist writes, “need to
welcome, include and minister among people
across socioeconomic boundaries.” She assures
us that “we don’t need to fear those named ‘of
no worth’ becoming filled with power and
potential because,” she concludes, “together
we can become life-givers in the world.”
Where to begin?
For starters, the term “inequality” when used
in this context is both inaccurate and unfair.
“Equality” is a morally charged word. In this
respect it is not unlike “good,” “justice,”
“virtue,” and the like. Some of “the rich” that
Everist and her ilk loathe may know how to
cook their books, but Everist and her fellow
proponents of economic “equality” most
definitely know how to cook their arguments:
casting one’s position in the language of
“equality” is a sure-fire way of stacking the
deck in favor of one’s view from the outset.
That this is so becomes obvious once it’s
considered that the very same people who
incessantly bemoan “inequality” while arguing
for income and wealth redistribution are the
first to demand ever greater “diversity.” They
are the first to bludgeon us into “celebrating”
our differences.
Income/wealth “inequality,” however, is
diversity.
If we are going to promote real diversity, then
it is a foregone conclusion that there will be
differences, dramatic differences, in the life
choices that individuals make.
And this in turn means, necessarily, that there
will be staggering differences in the amount of
money that people earn, for among the choices
that people make throughout their lives is the
choice of, well, their livelihoods.
“Inequality,” in other words, is just the word
that the self-avowed champions of diversity
attribute to those instances of diversity that
aren’t to their liking.
If, as Professor Everist implies, those of us
who object to being coerced into working
longer hours for little to no pay for the sake of
realizing the redistributive scheme of some
ideologue’s imagination are the enemies of
“equality,” then she and her fellow travelers
are the enemies of diversity (to say nothing of
individuality and liberty).
Another critical point is that, whether by
accident or design, all too many contemporary
representatives of the church, like Professor
Everist, conflate the issue of “the poor” or “the
needy” with that of economic “inequality.” In
doing so, they radically misconstrue the
Gospel.
The parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable
more than any other designed to emblematize
the ideal of Christian charity, features a man
of considerable means—the Samaritan—who
deployed some of his ample resources to help
a stranger in need.
Jesus, in other words, held up a reasonably
well-to-do, and possibly even wealthy, man as
the model of Christian love.
Christ also praised a Roman soldier, a man,
mind you, who was sufficiently well off to
have servants, as displaying more faith than
anyone— including the impoverished to whom
He ministered—in all of Israel.
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were rich
members of the priestly class with whom Jesus
must’ve been particularly close, for not only
did they attempt to prevail upon their fellow
Pharisees to refrain from turning Jesus over to
the Romans. Following Jesus’ crucifixion, both
prepared His body for burial in the tomb that
Joseph secured for Him.
The Christian’s vocation is to care for the
needy, for those in need. And this could
include anyone— regardless of his or her
socioeconomic circumstances. Unfortunately,
whether Lutheran, Catholic, or otherwise, the
contemporary Christian church’s almost
exclusive emphasis on “the poor” comes at the
cost of reducing the non-poor, and certainly
the rich, to the status of non-persons. As such,
the latter are for practical purposes rendered
objects, yes, but not proper objects of agape,
of Christian love.
No, the tireless campaign to demonize “the
rich”—as well as those of us who are not rich
but who object to the demonization of the rich
and the socialist fantasies of the demagogues—
renders “the rich” just objects.
Of course a great portion of Jesus’ ministry
was spent ministering to the poor. Yet a great
deal was also expended upon attending to the
needs of the non-poor—as well as those of the
rich .
And none of it was spent on the issue of
“economic inequality.”
AN ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT
Bill Tatro
Having lived most of my life in upstate New
York in the snow belt region, (between
Syracuse and Buffalo) I always found it
prudent to heed the advice of the weather man
when he proclaimed a major storm was
coming. Most people would make a mad dash
to the store to load up on such essentials as
bread and milk. That always confused me since
there is just so much milk you can drink and
bread that you can eat. I, on the other hand,
would make sure there was enough gasoline
to drive the generator in case the power went
out. Then I went for the milk (wine) and the
bread(steak), to each his own.
There were many times that the weatherman
was not necessarily wrong about a storm but
was wrong about the severity. A little egg on
his/her face. However, there were very few,
egg or not, that weren’t appreciative of the
warnings since, inconvenient or not they were
life threatening forecasts. We never took a
winter storm for granted.
People today, when viewing the current stock
market, would be well advised to listen to the
warnings about the coming storm. Like the
weatherman, who uses various measurements,
historical basis, and even life time experience,
so to do different “financial weathermen” in
forecasting the financial storm coming.
Excessive leverage, share buyback, nonexistent
cap ex, historic merger and acquisition pricing
would be the equivalent of temperature
inversions, moisture build up and wind flow
changes. The later would send us scurrying for
that proverbial milk and bread. However, the
former simply makes most folks yawn and ask
with a complacent smile, REALLY? AND?
Since weather has been so front and center in
justifying the poor economic results of the past
it may be wise to take a lesson from that same
weather, especially the kind that is
experienced in upstate New York.
The components for a major financial storm
continue to build every single day. We can
ignore them at our peril or we can realize that
it is not a question of if but of when.
Milk and bread anyone?
Having lived most of my life in upstate New
York in the snow belt region, (between
Syracuse and Buffalo) I always found it
prudent to heed the advice of the weather man
when he proclaimed a major storm was
coming. Most people would make a mad dash
to the store to load up on such essentials as
bread and milk. That always confused me since
there is just so much milk you can drink and
bread that you can eat. I, on the other hand,
would make sure there was enough gasoline
to drive the generator in case the power went
out. Then I went for the milk (wine) and the
bread(steak), to each his own.
There were many times that the weatherman
was not necessarily wrong about a storm but
was wrong about the severity. A little egg on
his/her face. However, there were very few,
egg or not, that weren’t appreciative of the
warnings since, inconvenient or not they were
life threatening forecasts. We never took a
winter storm for granted.
People today, when viewing the current stock
market, would be well advised to listen to the
warnings about the coming storm. Like the
weatherman, who uses various measurements,
historical basis, and even life time experience,
so to do different “financial weathermen” in
forecasting the financial storm coming.
Excessive leverage, share buyback, nonexistent
cap ex, historic merger and acquisition pricing
would be the equivalent of temperature
inversions, moisture build up and wind flow
changes. The later would send us scurrying for
that proverbial milk and bread. However, the
former simply makes most folks yawn and ask
with a complacent smile, REALLY? AND?
Since weather has been so front and center in
justifying the poor economic results of the past
it may be wise to take a lesson from that same
weather, especially the kind that is
experienced in upstate New York.
The components for a major financial storm
continue to build every single day. We can
ignore them at our peril or we can realize that
it is not a question of if but of when.
Milk and bread anyone?
GOING GREEN IN THE NAME OF TYRANNY
Gabriella Hoffman
It’s undeniable that most, if not all, Americans
want to preserve and protect the environment.
No one truly wants to live in squalor or
breathe in dirty air. No one truly intends to
destroy nature or kill all wildlife. No one truly
desires to harm the planet.
Modern-day environmentalism is perceived as
a benign, “hip” cause. All the celebrities are
doing it, so it must be great—right? On the
surface “going green” seems harmless. We’re
told that “going green” will absolve us for our
supposed transgressions against the
environment. Certainly Mother Earth will
forgive us for developing our beautiful planet
while creating opportunities for prosperity and
social advancement!
What could possibly be wrong with the green
lifestyle?
Green on the outside yet red on the inside,
modern-day environmentalism is an anti-life,
anti-fun, and anti-progress movement. Peel
away the “protect the planet” façade to
discover its eco-socialist core. Heritage
Foundation’s Stephen Moore beautifully
summarizes the goal of today’s
environmentalist movement:
The dirty little secret of the modern
environmental movement is that it has become
a luxury good for the uber-rich. Its policies—
from carbon taxes, to renewable energy
standards, to crushing regulations on coal
plants—would impose high costs on the people
who can least afford to pay the green tab.
Support offshore drilling or commercial
fishing? Shamu and other marine life will be
killed off ! Reject the idea of “climate change”
and its alleged anthropogenic nature?
Apparently, it’s grounds for being arrested .
Like eating Krispy Kreme Donuts? Forget it—
their company is largely responsible for
deforestation . Think the world isn’t
overpopulated? Wrong—population control is
needed to reduce poverty.
In February 2014, Greenpeace co-founder
Patrick Moore—a Canadian ecologist and
business consultant who served as a member
of the group from 1971-86— testified before the
Senate Environmental and Public Works
Committee. He noted how the Left hijacked
environmentalism and said, “After 15 years in
the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace
took a sharp turn to the political left, and
began to adopt policies that I could not accept
from my scientific perspective. Climate change
was not an issue when I abandoned
Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
The largest enabler of eco-socialism is the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
is more affectionately known as the
Employment Prevention Agency. Born out of
executive order signed into law by President
Richard Nixon on December 20, 1970, the EPA
was originally created to promote conservation
and protect the health of Americans. Today,
that is not the case. When it’s not instructing
employees to stop defecating in hallways,
spending millions on conferences , or tinkering
with lost emails, the EPA is engaged in a full-
fledged war on jobs, oil, fishing, and hunting,
among many things.
Heartland Institute’s Jay Lehr, who
encouraged the creation of the EPA , notes the
department’s radical shift from its original
purpose:
Activist groups realized the agency could be
used to alter our government by coming down
heavily on all human activities regardless of
their impact on the environment. From
approximately 1981 onward, EPA rules and
regulations became less about science-based
environmental protection and more about
advancing extraneous ideological agendas.
In August 2010, the Center for Biological
Diversity and four other organizations
petitioned the EPA to ban all lead in fishing
tackle and ammunition under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), because lead is
supposedly evil. Groups like Keep America
Fishing and National Shooting Sports
Foundation immediately voiced concern and
pressured the EPA to not pursue a ban on lead
tackle and ammunition. Why?
Environmentalist groups resorted to
fearmongering and lied about lead’s effects. A
November 2008 study from the U.S. Centers for
Disease concluded that “some individuals who
eat a great deal of wild game may have lower
blood lead levels than some other individuals
who eat little or no wild game but who have
other sources of lead exposure.” Had
corresponding legislation been considered,
industries beyond hunting and fishing —namely
law enforcement, military, and target shooting
—would have been adversely affected.
Additionally, the EPA has repeatedly tried to
label water as a pollutant . They were
successfully defeated in January 2013 when a
case filed by the Virginia Department and
Transportation and Fairfax County sued the
EPA for overstepping its bounds in trying to
regulate stormwater that flows into Fairfax
County’s Accotink Creek.
What can be done to curb the tide of eco-
socialism without hurting the environment?
First and foremost, the EPA should be
abolished or at least overhauled. It has too
much wrest over our lives and doesn’t have
small business interests in mind. Secondly,
alternative views on “climate change” need to
be encouraged and welcomed. Studies confirm
that the “climate change” theory is largely
exaggerated and that change in climate can’t
be solely attributed to humans . Thirdly,
sustainable conservation through fishing and
hunting should also be discussed. Those of us
who fish and hunt desire to conserve our
surroundings. Whenever we invest in licenses,
gear, guns, or supplies, proceeds help support
conservation efforts.
Radical environmentalism is a consequence of
big government policies. Rather than helping
the environment, government is harming the
environment with its burdensome tax code, its
restrictive policies, and its embrace of
Marxism. Instead, free-market
environmentalism is the best alternative. Why?
It suggests private property rights, free
enterprise, and limited government solutions
best preserve and help protect the
environment.
Green is the new red, and it must be crushed.
It’s undeniable that most, if not all, Americans
want to preserve and protect the environment.
No one truly wants to live in squalor or
breathe in dirty air. No one truly intends to
destroy nature or kill all wildlife. No one truly
desires to harm the planet.
Modern-day environmentalism is perceived as
a benign, “hip” cause. All the celebrities are
doing it, so it must be great—right? On the
surface “going green” seems harmless. We’re
told that “going green” will absolve us for our
supposed transgressions against the
environment. Certainly Mother Earth will
forgive us for developing our beautiful planet
while creating opportunities for prosperity and
social advancement!
What could possibly be wrong with the green
lifestyle?
Green on the outside yet red on the inside,
modern-day environmentalism is an anti-life,
anti-fun, and anti-progress movement. Peel
away the “protect the planet” façade to
discover its eco-socialist core. Heritage
Foundation’s Stephen Moore beautifully
summarizes the goal of today’s
environmentalist movement:
The dirty little secret of the modern
environmental movement is that it has become
a luxury good for the uber-rich. Its policies—
from carbon taxes, to renewable energy
standards, to crushing regulations on coal
plants—would impose high costs on the people
who can least afford to pay the green tab.
Support offshore drilling or commercial
fishing? Shamu and other marine life will be
killed off ! Reject the idea of “climate change”
and its alleged anthropogenic nature?
Apparently, it’s grounds for being arrested .
Like eating Krispy Kreme Donuts? Forget it—
their company is largely responsible for
deforestation . Think the world isn’t
overpopulated? Wrong—population control is
needed to reduce poverty.
In February 2014, Greenpeace co-founder
Patrick Moore—a Canadian ecologist and
business consultant who served as a member
of the group from 1971-86— testified before the
Senate Environmental and Public Works
Committee. He noted how the Left hijacked
environmentalism and said, “After 15 years in
the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace
took a sharp turn to the political left, and
began to adopt policies that I could not accept
from my scientific perspective. Climate change
was not an issue when I abandoned
Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
The largest enabler of eco-socialism is the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
is more affectionately known as the
Employment Prevention Agency. Born out of
executive order signed into law by President
Richard Nixon on December 20, 1970, the EPA
was originally created to promote conservation
and protect the health of Americans. Today,
that is not the case. When it’s not instructing
employees to stop defecating in hallways,
spending millions on conferences , or tinkering
with lost emails, the EPA is engaged in a full-
fledged war on jobs, oil, fishing, and hunting,
among many things.
Heartland Institute’s Jay Lehr, who
encouraged the creation of the EPA , notes the
department’s radical shift from its original
purpose:
Activist groups realized the agency could be
used to alter our government by coming down
heavily on all human activities regardless of
their impact on the environment. From
approximately 1981 onward, EPA rules and
regulations became less about science-based
environmental protection and more about
advancing extraneous ideological agendas.
In August 2010, the Center for Biological
Diversity and four other organizations
petitioned the EPA to ban all lead in fishing
tackle and ammunition under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), because lead is
supposedly evil. Groups like Keep America
Fishing and National Shooting Sports
Foundation immediately voiced concern and
pressured the EPA to not pursue a ban on lead
tackle and ammunition. Why?
Environmentalist groups resorted to
fearmongering and lied about lead’s effects. A
November 2008 study from the U.S. Centers for
Disease concluded that “some individuals who
eat a great deal of wild game may have lower
blood lead levels than some other individuals
who eat little or no wild game but who have
other sources of lead exposure.” Had
corresponding legislation been considered,
industries beyond hunting and fishing —namely
law enforcement, military, and target shooting
—would have been adversely affected.
Additionally, the EPA has repeatedly tried to
label water as a pollutant . They were
successfully defeated in January 2013 when a
case filed by the Virginia Department and
Transportation and Fairfax County sued the
EPA for overstepping its bounds in trying to
regulate stormwater that flows into Fairfax
County’s Accotink Creek.
What can be done to curb the tide of eco-
socialism without hurting the environment?
First and foremost, the EPA should be
abolished or at least overhauled. It has too
much wrest over our lives and doesn’t have
small business interests in mind. Secondly,
alternative views on “climate change” need to
be encouraged and welcomed. Studies confirm
that the “climate change” theory is largely
exaggerated and that change in climate can’t
be solely attributed to humans . Thirdly,
sustainable conservation through fishing and
hunting should also be discussed. Those of us
who fish and hunt desire to conserve our
surroundings. Whenever we invest in licenses,
gear, guns, or supplies, proceeds help support
conservation efforts.
Radical environmentalism is a consequence of
big government policies. Rather than helping
the environment, government is harming the
environment with its burdensome tax code, its
restrictive policies, and its embrace of
Marxism. Instead, free-market
environmentalism is the best alternative. Why?
It suggests private property rights, free
enterprise, and limited government solutions
best preserve and help protect the
environment.
Green is the new red, and it must be crushed.
LIVING HISTORY AT GROUND ZERO
Suzanne Fields
New York -- New York, New York, a
wonderful town. (The Bronx is up, and the
Battery's down.)
Sometimes derided in what New Yorkers call
"flyover country," Gotham is nevertheless a
microcosm of America with its many
immigrant and ethnic cultures, the work of
immigrants who first clung together in self-
made ghettos with shops, stores and
restaurants to recall the places left behind.
When these immigrants make enough money,
they usually move out to more inclusive
neighborhoods.
New York was built by legal immigrants. At
Ellis Island, where more than 12 million
immigrants made their first stop in America
between 1892 and 1954, a tour guide tells the
story -- perhaps apocryphal, but it could be
true -- about an arriving immigrant who wore
a signboard because he spoke no English,
saying he wanted to go to Houston, meaning
the street on the Lower East Side, then a
Jewish neighborhood. He was by mistake put
on a train to Houston, Texas -- where he
settled and struck oil.
These were the days and years of happier
immigration. There was no chaos on the
border, few questions about who was legal
and who was not. It was difficult for those
immigrants to get here and difficult to go back.
Everyone came to stay, climb into the melting
pot and become an American. New York is a
city in constant change, swinging between the
pride of e pluribus unum -- "out of many, one"
-- and the discomfort that accompanies
multicultural and economic differences. The
roiling debate over illegal immigration
sometimes leads us to forget that we are all
immigrants. Ronald Reagan once remarked that
America is the only country in the world
where a new citizen is as American as a
citizen descended from a forebear who arrived
two or three centuries ago.
But New York is also different from the rest of
America, with its sophisticated culture in
avant-garde art galleries, museums, expensive
couturiers, gourmet restaurants and an
abundance of upscale organic, vegan and
gluten-free markets to suit the precious and
the trendy. On the upper reaches of income,
the 1-percenters are status-conscious,
acquisitive consumers who can afford almost
any luxury the city offers.
New York is the melting pot that never quite
melts, with some of the poorest driven by
hope of "moving on up," to achieve and
become rich in the way of the millions who
did it before, and with a shrinking middle class
of young people moving away when they want
to start families because they can't afford
Manhattan rents.
What draws New Yorkers together today is the
memory of Sept. 11, 2001, and the rebuilt
ground zero. The new National September 11
Memorial Museum has opened next to the
Freedom Tower, rising from the ashes like the
mythical Phoenix, testifying to the defiance of
an obscene Islamist attempt to humble and
humiliate.
The sacred and the secular are mixed at the
museum at ground zero, documenting both
what was lost and the spirit of what survives.
The lost get personalities in portraits with
touching detail that rises above grim statistics.
Cherished artifacts, a pair of shoes, a pair of
eyeglasses, a fireman's helmet, a medal, bring
life to democracy's Valley of the Kings. Grief
remains palpable in the descent into dark
reflection, a pilgrimage warmed by hope of
never again. A dramatic abstract sculpture
created by the force of impact when one of the
airplanes crashed into the North Tower
between floors 93 and 99, agitates the
imagination with pity and fear, steel twisted in
agony and loss.
The slurry wall, 64 feet of poured concrete
that kept out the Hudson River, survives, a
monolith preserved as though an
archaeological remnant of an ancient
civilization. It's a triumph of engineering, an
emblem of the human spirit, cracked but
unbowed. A surveillance video showing the
hijackers going through airport security on the
fateful morning unsettles but demands
attention. Some critics have railed against the
use of the word "jihad" in the museum's
narrative about 9/11, but the word is both
reminder and touchstone for diligence in the
continuing pursuit of evil men who are
determined to kill us.
This week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
warned that Islamist fighters from Europe and
the United States who went to fight in Syria
have learned new technology from bomb-
makers in Yemen, and some have been sent
home with an assignment to do harm.
The Memorial Museum reminds New Yorkers
and the rest of us to love thy neighbor, but
beware of thy enemies. Two granite basins of
rippling water fill the footprints of the
destroyed twin towers, tears of grief and
mourning -- and of renewal and the will to
fight back.
New York -- New York, New York, a
wonderful town. (The Bronx is up, and the
Battery's down.)
Sometimes derided in what New Yorkers call
"flyover country," Gotham is nevertheless a
microcosm of America with its many
immigrant and ethnic cultures, the work of
immigrants who first clung together in self-
made ghettos with shops, stores and
restaurants to recall the places left behind.
When these immigrants make enough money,
they usually move out to more inclusive
neighborhoods.
New York was built by legal immigrants. At
Ellis Island, where more than 12 million
immigrants made their first stop in America
between 1892 and 1954, a tour guide tells the
story -- perhaps apocryphal, but it could be
true -- about an arriving immigrant who wore
a signboard because he spoke no English,
saying he wanted to go to Houston, meaning
the street on the Lower East Side, then a
Jewish neighborhood. He was by mistake put
on a train to Houston, Texas -- where he
settled and struck oil.
These were the days and years of happier
immigration. There was no chaos on the
border, few questions about who was legal
and who was not. It was difficult for those
immigrants to get here and difficult to go back.
Everyone came to stay, climb into the melting
pot and become an American. New York is a
city in constant change, swinging between the
pride of e pluribus unum -- "out of many, one"
-- and the discomfort that accompanies
multicultural and economic differences. The
roiling debate over illegal immigration
sometimes leads us to forget that we are all
immigrants. Ronald Reagan once remarked that
America is the only country in the world
where a new citizen is as American as a
citizen descended from a forebear who arrived
two or three centuries ago.
But New York is also different from the rest of
America, with its sophisticated culture in
avant-garde art galleries, museums, expensive
couturiers, gourmet restaurants and an
abundance of upscale organic, vegan and
gluten-free markets to suit the precious and
the trendy. On the upper reaches of income,
the 1-percenters are status-conscious,
acquisitive consumers who can afford almost
any luxury the city offers.
New York is the melting pot that never quite
melts, with some of the poorest driven by
hope of "moving on up," to achieve and
become rich in the way of the millions who
did it before, and with a shrinking middle class
of young people moving away when they want
to start families because they can't afford
Manhattan rents.
What draws New Yorkers together today is the
memory of Sept. 11, 2001, and the rebuilt
ground zero. The new National September 11
Memorial Museum has opened next to the
Freedom Tower, rising from the ashes like the
mythical Phoenix, testifying to the defiance of
an obscene Islamist attempt to humble and
humiliate.
The sacred and the secular are mixed at the
museum at ground zero, documenting both
what was lost and the spirit of what survives.
The lost get personalities in portraits with
touching detail that rises above grim statistics.
Cherished artifacts, a pair of shoes, a pair of
eyeglasses, a fireman's helmet, a medal, bring
life to democracy's Valley of the Kings. Grief
remains palpable in the descent into dark
reflection, a pilgrimage warmed by hope of
never again. A dramatic abstract sculpture
created by the force of impact when one of the
airplanes crashed into the North Tower
between floors 93 and 99, agitates the
imagination with pity and fear, steel twisted in
agony and loss.
The slurry wall, 64 feet of poured concrete
that kept out the Hudson River, survives, a
monolith preserved as though an
archaeological remnant of an ancient
civilization. It's a triumph of engineering, an
emblem of the human spirit, cracked but
unbowed. A surveillance video showing the
hijackers going through airport security on the
fateful morning unsettles but demands
attention. Some critics have railed against the
use of the word "jihad" in the museum's
narrative about 9/11, but the word is both
reminder and touchstone for diligence in the
continuing pursuit of evil men who are
determined to kill us.
This week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
warned that Islamist fighters from Europe and
the United States who went to fight in Syria
have learned new technology from bomb-
makers in Yemen, and some have been sent
home with an assignment to do harm.
The Memorial Museum reminds New Yorkers
and the rest of us to love thy neighbor, but
beware of thy enemies. Two granite basins of
rippling water fill the footprints of the
destroyed twin towers, tears of grief and
mourning -- and of renewal and the will to
fight back.
HONOURING OUR FATHERS
Michael Reagan
Despite the media play Chicago gets, it isn't the
official "Murder Capital of the U.S.A."
That unhappy distinction - based on the
murder rate per 100,000 people, not on the
number of actual dead people on the streets -
belongs to poor, under-populated Flint, Mich.
Chicago gets the bad rap - and the attention of
the anti-gun nuts -- because it led the nation
with 415 homicides last year. That's more
murders than any other city, but not even in
the top 10 when you factor in population.
Thanks to its recent "Independence Day
Massacre," which left 18 dead and 82
wounded, Chicago's murder toll has already hit
201 for this year.
Homicides have been trending down in Mayor
Emanuel's kind of town and other major cities
for decades. Chicago had nearly 1,000 murders
a year in the early 1990s.
But most of the city's murder victims, and their
murderers, continue to be young blacks and
Latinos who either belonged to gangs or were
the victims of their drive-by violence.
The slaughter in our inner cities, while not as
bloody as it used to be, is our continuing
national tragedy.
Chicago and statistically more dangerous cities
like Detroit, New Orleans and Washington are
perpetual war zones where Americans kill
each other year round.
The only solution liberals have for ending gun
violence in the cities is to take away
everybody's guns.
But Chicago already has some of the country's
toughest gun laws. They obviously don't
bother the local drug lords.
No one ever wants to address the underlying
cause of the violence in our inner cities.
It's not the presence of guns. It's the absence
of fathers in the homes of the gang-bangers
who are using guns to shoot each other.
The numbers are depressing and well known.
Nearly 2 in 3 black children grow up in homes
without a father present. One in three Latino
kids do.
We can thank the liberals and their 1960s
welfare programs for many of these broken
families.
It was their "War on Poverty" that gave
unmarried mothers financial independence,
made fathers superfluous and undermined the
formation of two-parent families.
Fathers were let off the hook for their baby
making and disappeared from family life.
Mothers and grandmothers raised the children.
And when the fatherless boys grew up they did
what children born into broken families often
do. They went out and found their own
substitute families on the streets. We call them
gangs.
And then as gang members they use guns to
defend their street families from those who try
to do them harm the same way we'd defend
our family members.
The murderous violence in our cities is never
going to end until someone stands up and
wakes up America with a "Put the father back
in the family" speech.
Bill Cosby tried it - and caught hell. Others
have caught hell for talking about the
importance to children and society of intact
families.
It's time for someone politically and culturally
important - like the president - to make a big,
brave speech and remind everyone in the
country that families need fathers, and vice
versa.
The "fatherless family" problem goes beyond
the inner cities and it transcends race and
ethnicity.
We have a nation today where 20 to 30 million
children go to bed each night without a father
in the home.
We have a pop culture that constantly
disrespects and mocks fathers.
Try to find a popular TV show - or a Disney
movie - where the father is not laughed at or
depicted as a bumbling fool. It's not easy.
Dishonoring our fathers and denying their
importance to strong families has to end. If we
want America to survive, we need to put
fathers back in the home where they belong.
Despite the media play Chicago gets, it isn't the
official "Murder Capital of the U.S.A."
That unhappy distinction - based on the
murder rate per 100,000 people, not on the
number of actual dead people on the streets -
belongs to poor, under-populated Flint, Mich.
Chicago gets the bad rap - and the attention of
the anti-gun nuts -- because it led the nation
with 415 homicides last year. That's more
murders than any other city, but not even in
the top 10 when you factor in population.
Thanks to its recent "Independence Day
Massacre," which left 18 dead and 82
wounded, Chicago's murder toll has already hit
201 for this year.
Homicides have been trending down in Mayor
Emanuel's kind of town and other major cities
for decades. Chicago had nearly 1,000 murders
a year in the early 1990s.
But most of the city's murder victims, and their
murderers, continue to be young blacks and
Latinos who either belonged to gangs or were
the victims of their drive-by violence.
The slaughter in our inner cities, while not as
bloody as it used to be, is our continuing
national tragedy.
Chicago and statistically more dangerous cities
like Detroit, New Orleans and Washington are
perpetual war zones where Americans kill
each other year round.
The only solution liberals have for ending gun
violence in the cities is to take away
everybody's guns.
But Chicago already has some of the country's
toughest gun laws. They obviously don't
bother the local drug lords.
No one ever wants to address the underlying
cause of the violence in our inner cities.
It's not the presence of guns. It's the absence
of fathers in the homes of the gang-bangers
who are using guns to shoot each other.
The numbers are depressing and well known.
Nearly 2 in 3 black children grow up in homes
without a father present. One in three Latino
kids do.
We can thank the liberals and their 1960s
welfare programs for many of these broken
families.
It was their "War on Poverty" that gave
unmarried mothers financial independence,
made fathers superfluous and undermined the
formation of two-parent families.
Fathers were let off the hook for their baby
making and disappeared from family life.
Mothers and grandmothers raised the children.
And when the fatherless boys grew up they did
what children born into broken families often
do. They went out and found their own
substitute families on the streets. We call them
gangs.
And then as gang members they use guns to
defend their street families from those who try
to do them harm the same way we'd defend
our family members.
The murderous violence in our cities is never
going to end until someone stands up and
wakes up America with a "Put the father back
in the family" speech.
Bill Cosby tried it - and caught hell. Others
have caught hell for talking about the
importance to children and society of intact
families.
It's time for someone politically and culturally
important - like the president - to make a big,
brave speech and remind everyone in the
country that families need fathers, and vice
versa.
The "fatherless family" problem goes beyond
the inner cities and it transcends race and
ethnicity.
We have a nation today where 20 to 30 million
children go to bed each night without a father
in the home.
We have a pop culture that constantly
disrespects and mocks fathers.
Try to find a popular TV show - or a Disney
movie - where the father is not laughed at or
depicted as a bumbling fool. It's not easy.
Dishonoring our fathers and denying their
importance to strong families has to end. If we
want America to survive, we need to put
fathers back in the home where they belong.
POST-POLL ADMINISTRATIVE INERTIA
Shujaat Bukhari
“National Conference Government has taken
historic decisions in all fields of governance and
development particularly concerning common
people and youth”— Omar Abdullah at a workers meet in Baramulla on July 12.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has been repeatedly saying that his government has a lot to talk about “good governance” and he would go to people with his “achievements” of past nearly six years. There must have been some positive decisions, which his government has taken and obviously the impact must be on the ground. However, what he did soon after the debacle in the recently held parliamentary
elections contradicts his oft repeated claims.
Reversing the recruitment policy, abrupt decision to increase the retirement age from 58 to 60 (despite beating the employees for full five years) and many more post-poll initiatives stand testimony to the fact that his government had not taken those decisions with a proper thought and planning.
Governance in a state like Jammu and Kashmir is highly politicised with different rather warring
narratives and priorities set for the political actors.
Therefore, it assumes fundamental importance in the life of a common man. Its efficiency or a
positive impact is based on the decisions you take at the higher level. Running the administration smoothly by picking up right people for the right job is the thumb rule for making governance visible and effective. But that unfortunately has not been case with this government.
DEFUNCT SEAT OF POWER:
Look at the situation that has been prevailing in the Civil Secretariat since the election results were out.
It is like as if there is no government. The ministers are continuously missing from their chambers and mostly seen in their constituencies to make the last ditch effort to make their revival possible. The files
are piling up and bureaucracy has no interest in
following up the issues that are of vital interest to the people. A routine visit to the Secretariat gives the real feel of the situation at this highest seat of power. Not only are the ministers running away from offices but the officers have also started looking towards the new possible dispensations.
They are seen making beeline at the houses of
those politicians who they think may come to
power. “Changing the loyalties does not take much
time in this place and you should not be
surprised,” quipped an officer.
Some of the ministers when quizzed say that when
chief minister himself is not in office how can
others be held accountable. Soon after the poll
debacle Omar Abdullah shifted his “Durbar” to
Gupkar throwing the doors of his residence open.
Long queues of people with grievances were seen
outside his residence so people believed that now
this was the place where they could seek redressal.
It virtually turned into a grievance cell though there
is already one rather defunct at his Secretariat
office. Just to cite an example, Director of Rural
Development Kashmir has not even acknowledged
ten reminders from CM’s grievance cell not to talk
of redressal.
FILLING OF VACANCIES:
As I mentioned earlier, good governance needs a
top to bottom approach. It begins with the
mechanism you put in place right from the top.
Two months have passed since the model code of
conduct came to an end and the State Cabinet has
at least met five times. But they failed to arrive at
the consensus to fill some very important positions
in the government. Besides Education, Rural
Development and ARI/Trainings is without a full
time administrative secretary. So is the case with
some other major departments which don’t have
full time Directors.
Imagine a state without a full time Education and
Rural Development Secretaries for many months
now. Education is being looked after by even
otherwise overburdened Home Secretary and the
Rural Development charge is with Higher Education
Secretary. Both Education and Rural Development
are vitally important departments which have a lot
to do with the growth and development in these
two sectors. But the Ministers of National
Conference and Congress coalition have a different
yard stick in picking up the people to fill these
positions.
One grievance the state has always talked about is
that the non-state subject IAS officers are always
looking for a deputation and do not want to serve
the state. But three IAS officers P K Tripathi, Ashok
Parmar and Rohit Kansal have been waiting for
their adjustments for a considerable time, though
Kansal joined back recently. All of them fit in the
positions of Secretaries but the government has no
time to give them the responsibility and utilize their
services.
Likewise the tussle between NC and Congress over
replacement of Deputy Commissioners has put the
whole process of reshuffle to a halt. Obviously the
Ministers, of whom majority have badly performed
in recent Lok Sabha elections, would like to have
DC’s of their “choice” to see some fortune coming
back. But that seems to be a far-fetched dream as
the DC’s no longer can function as “Khaliq made”
with a lot of surveillance around. Recent elections
have shown that administration was under watch
from different quarters and that perhaps made the
process credible. So wasting time on selection of
an officer of choice to get benefitted from elections
does not help anyone. But this has made the
administration defunct with most of officers looking
either towards a fortune or a marching order.
Similarly the government has failed to fill the
vacancies in Public Service Commission, which is
left with only two members out of eight. There is
no full Commission to conduct the interviews for
KAS aspirants. Though Congress is believed to
have finalized its share of names, NC has been
dithering over the issue for long time.
PREMATURE DEPARTURE:
With no zeal to work seen in the Secretariat, it
looks like as if the government has made a
premature departure from this highest seat of
power. In politics you don’t burn your boats but
keep the space open for a comeback. Apparent lack of interest in giving better governance to the people in these few months only shows that both parties do not have a commitment towards the public.
Being at loggerheads in coalition is well understood
but it should not come at the cost of the people
and their interests. If these parties really want a
revival in Assembly elections governance is the
best tool for that. But that cannot be used by
keeping important positions vacant only to reap the benefits through other means.
“National Conference Government has taken
historic decisions in all fields of governance and
development particularly concerning common
people and youth”— Omar Abdullah at a workers meet in Baramulla on July 12.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has been repeatedly saying that his government has a lot to talk about “good governance” and he would go to people with his “achievements” of past nearly six years. There must have been some positive decisions, which his government has taken and obviously the impact must be on the ground. However, what he did soon after the debacle in the recently held parliamentary
elections contradicts his oft repeated claims.
Reversing the recruitment policy, abrupt decision to increase the retirement age from 58 to 60 (despite beating the employees for full five years) and many more post-poll initiatives stand testimony to the fact that his government had not taken those decisions with a proper thought and planning.
Governance in a state like Jammu and Kashmir is highly politicised with different rather warring
narratives and priorities set for the political actors.
Therefore, it assumes fundamental importance in the life of a common man. Its efficiency or a
positive impact is based on the decisions you take at the higher level. Running the administration smoothly by picking up right people for the right job is the thumb rule for making governance visible and effective. But that unfortunately has not been case with this government.
DEFUNCT SEAT OF POWER:
Look at the situation that has been prevailing in the Civil Secretariat since the election results were out.
It is like as if there is no government. The ministers are continuously missing from their chambers and mostly seen in their constituencies to make the last ditch effort to make their revival possible. The files
are piling up and bureaucracy has no interest in
following up the issues that are of vital interest to the people. A routine visit to the Secretariat gives the real feel of the situation at this highest seat of power. Not only are the ministers running away from offices but the officers have also started looking towards the new possible dispensations.
They are seen making beeline at the houses of
those politicians who they think may come to
power. “Changing the loyalties does not take much
time in this place and you should not be
surprised,” quipped an officer.
Some of the ministers when quizzed say that when
chief minister himself is not in office how can
others be held accountable. Soon after the poll
debacle Omar Abdullah shifted his “Durbar” to
Gupkar throwing the doors of his residence open.
Long queues of people with grievances were seen
outside his residence so people believed that now
this was the place where they could seek redressal.
It virtually turned into a grievance cell though there
is already one rather defunct at his Secretariat
office. Just to cite an example, Director of Rural
Development Kashmir has not even acknowledged
ten reminders from CM’s grievance cell not to talk
of redressal.
FILLING OF VACANCIES:
As I mentioned earlier, good governance needs a
top to bottom approach. It begins with the
mechanism you put in place right from the top.
Two months have passed since the model code of
conduct came to an end and the State Cabinet has
at least met five times. But they failed to arrive at
the consensus to fill some very important positions
in the government. Besides Education, Rural
Development and ARI/Trainings is without a full
time administrative secretary. So is the case with
some other major departments which don’t have
full time Directors.
Imagine a state without a full time Education and
Rural Development Secretaries for many months
now. Education is being looked after by even
otherwise overburdened Home Secretary and the
Rural Development charge is with Higher Education
Secretary. Both Education and Rural Development
are vitally important departments which have a lot
to do with the growth and development in these
two sectors. But the Ministers of National
Conference and Congress coalition have a different
yard stick in picking up the people to fill these
positions.
One grievance the state has always talked about is
that the non-state subject IAS officers are always
looking for a deputation and do not want to serve
the state. But three IAS officers P K Tripathi, Ashok
Parmar and Rohit Kansal have been waiting for
their adjustments for a considerable time, though
Kansal joined back recently. All of them fit in the
positions of Secretaries but the government has no
time to give them the responsibility and utilize their
services.
Likewise the tussle between NC and Congress over
replacement of Deputy Commissioners has put the
whole process of reshuffle to a halt. Obviously the
Ministers, of whom majority have badly performed
in recent Lok Sabha elections, would like to have
DC’s of their “choice” to see some fortune coming
back. But that seems to be a far-fetched dream as
the DC’s no longer can function as “Khaliq made”
with a lot of surveillance around. Recent elections
have shown that administration was under watch
from different quarters and that perhaps made the
process credible. So wasting time on selection of
an officer of choice to get benefitted from elections
does not help anyone. But this has made the
administration defunct with most of officers looking
either towards a fortune or a marching order.
Similarly the government has failed to fill the
vacancies in Public Service Commission, which is
left with only two members out of eight. There is
no full Commission to conduct the interviews for
KAS aspirants. Though Congress is believed to
have finalized its share of names, NC has been
dithering over the issue for long time.
PREMATURE DEPARTURE:
With no zeal to work seen in the Secretariat, it
looks like as if the government has made a
premature departure from this highest seat of
power. In politics you don’t burn your boats but
keep the space open for a comeback. Apparent lack of interest in giving better governance to the people in these few months only shows that both parties do not have a commitment towards the public.
Being at loggerheads in coalition is well understood
but it should not come at the cost of the people
and their interests. If these parties really want a
revival in Assembly elections governance is the
best tool for that. But that cannot be used by
keeping important positions vacant only to reap the benefits through other means.
DON'T STEAL THE ELECTION NOW
D Suba Chandran
Within a span of two months, there has been an
unfortunate turn around to the electoral and thereby the larger democratic process in Afghanistan. After a successful first round of elections in April 2014, the second round took place during the last month to elect either Abdullah Abdullah or Ashraf Ghani.
What should have been a simple and straight
forward election between two candidates has today become a highly divisive one, threatening the positive achievements in the recent years towards establishing Afghanistan as a democracy.
Trouble started much before the counting process
began. Abdullah Abdullah complained about fraud
in the second round of election, with ballot boxes
being stuffed in more than 2000 polling booths.
What was surprising also was the number of votes
polled in the second round of elections, when
compared with the first round.
While the first round witnessed polling of six
million votes, the initial count after elections
projected seven million, while the final number after
counting rose to eight million. The independent
Election Commission has announced that Ashraf
Ghani scoring more than 54 percent of the votes
polled, while Abdullah Abdullah securing less than
45 percent.
Abdullah group consider this as a huge fraud and
believe that the two million votes should be bogus
and stuffed to ensure Ashraf Ghani wins the
process. His supporters also provide as proof
telephonic conversations of the election
commission officials on the issue of fraud and
attempting to steal the election in favour of Ashraf
Ghani.
With the other two candidates – Zalmai Rassoul
and Abdul Sayyaf who have secured 11 and 7
percent of votes during the previous round,
supporting Abdullah Abdullah, the latter was
expecting his vote share would increase from 45
percent in the previous round to more than 50
percent during the second round. However, Ashraf
Ghani who had scored less that Abdullah in the
first round was declared securing more than 50
percent, which the Abdullah group has refused to
accept.
Having gone through the same process earlier
while fighting Hamid Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah do
not want to lose one more time due to fraud and is
unlikely to wait till the next Presidential elections.
His supporters are vociferous and are pressurizing
Abdullah to form a government immediately on his
own. His group wants to go to the Presidential
palace and occupy it, thereby forming the
government. Abdullah does have support amongst
few Governors in the provinces and also amongst a
section within the Afghan security forces. His
threat is doable from his side.
It would have been a disaster had he carried out
the threat. Thankfully, he allowed Kerry to mediate
in finding a solution. After a marathon of meetings
between Abdullah and Ghani, Kerry did succeed in
establishing a deal; both had agreed to an audit
again, thereby counting the votes.
How did the electoral process, after the initial
success come to this stage? Was there really turn
around between the two rounds, which made Ashraf
Ghani take a decisive lead in a period of two
months? Or, was there something sinister behind
the entire disaster.
A section does accuse Hamid Karzai, the President
now for playing a dirty role in favouring Ashraf
Ghani. The latter being a pashtun is a factor cited
as Karzai’s decision to steal the election against
Abdullah Abdullah. When compared to Ashraf
Ghani, Abdullah Abdullah is not seen as an outside;
he has remained within Afghanistan, fought the
Soviet troops earlier as a part of the Mujahideen
resistance, and latter the Taliban. He continued to
support the political process after Karzai was made
the President during the last decade. Ashraf Ghani
is seen as an outside and technocrat, who was
imported from the West. So Abdullah group does
have a point.
Second, there is also a conspiracy theory accusing
Karzai as the primary villain trying deliberately to
create political instability. If there is a political
standoff between the two candidates, he is likely to
remain the President for a longer term; or, given
his support to Ashraf Ghani, the later would return
the favour and accommodate Karzai in one way or
another. This section also claims, without such a
long term plan for himself, he would not have
attempted to build such a huge palace in Kabul
after passing over the baton to the next President.
The US was alarmed with such a situation for three
reasons. First, Karzai continuing as the President
in the event of political instability mean that the
Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) would not be
signed between Afghanistan and the US. The other
two candidates have agreed to sign, if they get
elected. Second, the US is also equally worried
about any political instability at this juncture, with
the American forces preparing their exit plan.
The most important worry for the US is any repeat
of Iraq situation. A section within the US has
already started writing that today’s Iraq is
tomorrow’s Afghanistan, hinting that what is
happening within Iraq would happen to
Afghanistan. An unstable government, non-
inclusive politics, pull-out of foreign troops and
radical onslaught – the recipe for disaster today in
Iraq would very well become the ingredients of
failure in Afghanistan tomorrow.
The US at this juncture does not want one more
unstable country in this region. If there is instability
in Kabul, the political process would remain
paralysed. Attracting foreign investment, which is
crucial to the stability and the very survival of
Afghanistan, would then become a tougher issue.
More than the political paralysis and economic
failure, Afghanistan is likely to become politically
polarised along pashtun and non-pashtun lines, if
the above happens. This will also puncture the
Afghan dream that the youth in particular believes
in terms of establishing an Afghan nation based on
a larger identity cutting across narrow ethnic and
tribal identities. The political instability would let
the Afghan youth down and hit them hard, than any
other sections of the society.
So, who will benefit out of the above
developments? Obviously, without firing a single
bullet and planning an ambush, Taliban would gain
considerably and in fact would cover the lost
ground in no time. Taliban, though weakened when
compared to the last decade, still have enough fire
power to wreck the process, especially in a
politically unstable situation. Taliban would bounce
back, not because of inherent strength, but
because of the failure of mainstream political
process and political consensus.
For the rest of the region, any Taliban ingress in
Afghanistan now leading towards an establishment of any form of government, even over a limited territory would imply two fanatic regimes in Iraq in the west and in Afghanistan in the east, forming a radical corridor. Such a development would neither be in the interest of Afghanistan, or in the rest of Asia. West Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and even parts of Western China (especially Xinjiang) would
face the reverberations of such a development.
It is imperative that the two Presidential candidates in Afghanistan get back to the political process and ensure that the audit takes place, thus increasing the credibility of the electoral process and infusing faith in the political path.
Within a span of two months, there has been an
unfortunate turn around to the electoral and thereby the larger democratic process in Afghanistan. After a successful first round of elections in April 2014, the second round took place during the last month to elect either Abdullah Abdullah or Ashraf Ghani.
What should have been a simple and straight
forward election between two candidates has today become a highly divisive one, threatening the positive achievements in the recent years towards establishing Afghanistan as a democracy.
Trouble started much before the counting process
began. Abdullah Abdullah complained about fraud
in the second round of election, with ballot boxes
being stuffed in more than 2000 polling booths.
What was surprising also was the number of votes
polled in the second round of elections, when
compared with the first round.
While the first round witnessed polling of six
million votes, the initial count after elections
projected seven million, while the final number after
counting rose to eight million. The independent
Election Commission has announced that Ashraf
Ghani scoring more than 54 percent of the votes
polled, while Abdullah Abdullah securing less than
45 percent.
Abdullah group consider this as a huge fraud and
believe that the two million votes should be bogus
and stuffed to ensure Ashraf Ghani wins the
process. His supporters also provide as proof
telephonic conversations of the election
commission officials on the issue of fraud and
attempting to steal the election in favour of Ashraf
Ghani.
With the other two candidates – Zalmai Rassoul
and Abdul Sayyaf who have secured 11 and 7
percent of votes during the previous round,
supporting Abdullah Abdullah, the latter was
expecting his vote share would increase from 45
percent in the previous round to more than 50
percent during the second round. However, Ashraf
Ghani who had scored less that Abdullah in the
first round was declared securing more than 50
percent, which the Abdullah group has refused to
accept.
Having gone through the same process earlier
while fighting Hamid Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah do
not want to lose one more time due to fraud and is
unlikely to wait till the next Presidential elections.
His supporters are vociferous and are pressurizing
Abdullah to form a government immediately on his
own. His group wants to go to the Presidential
palace and occupy it, thereby forming the
government. Abdullah does have support amongst
few Governors in the provinces and also amongst a
section within the Afghan security forces. His
threat is doable from his side.
It would have been a disaster had he carried out
the threat. Thankfully, he allowed Kerry to mediate
in finding a solution. After a marathon of meetings
between Abdullah and Ghani, Kerry did succeed in
establishing a deal; both had agreed to an audit
again, thereby counting the votes.
How did the electoral process, after the initial
success come to this stage? Was there really turn
around between the two rounds, which made Ashraf
Ghani take a decisive lead in a period of two
months? Or, was there something sinister behind
the entire disaster.
A section does accuse Hamid Karzai, the President
now for playing a dirty role in favouring Ashraf
Ghani. The latter being a pashtun is a factor cited
as Karzai’s decision to steal the election against
Abdullah Abdullah. When compared to Ashraf
Ghani, Abdullah Abdullah is not seen as an outside;
he has remained within Afghanistan, fought the
Soviet troops earlier as a part of the Mujahideen
resistance, and latter the Taliban. He continued to
support the political process after Karzai was made
the President during the last decade. Ashraf Ghani
is seen as an outside and technocrat, who was
imported from the West. So Abdullah group does
have a point.
Second, there is also a conspiracy theory accusing
Karzai as the primary villain trying deliberately to
create political instability. If there is a political
standoff between the two candidates, he is likely to
remain the President for a longer term; or, given
his support to Ashraf Ghani, the later would return
the favour and accommodate Karzai in one way or
another. This section also claims, without such a
long term plan for himself, he would not have
attempted to build such a huge palace in Kabul
after passing over the baton to the next President.
The US was alarmed with such a situation for three
reasons. First, Karzai continuing as the President
in the event of political instability mean that the
Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) would not be
signed between Afghanistan and the US. The other
two candidates have agreed to sign, if they get
elected. Second, the US is also equally worried
about any political instability at this juncture, with
the American forces preparing their exit plan.
The most important worry for the US is any repeat
of Iraq situation. A section within the US has
already started writing that today’s Iraq is
tomorrow’s Afghanistan, hinting that what is
happening within Iraq would happen to
Afghanistan. An unstable government, non-
inclusive politics, pull-out of foreign troops and
radical onslaught – the recipe for disaster today in
Iraq would very well become the ingredients of
failure in Afghanistan tomorrow.
The US at this juncture does not want one more
unstable country in this region. If there is instability
in Kabul, the political process would remain
paralysed. Attracting foreign investment, which is
crucial to the stability and the very survival of
Afghanistan, would then become a tougher issue.
More than the political paralysis and economic
failure, Afghanistan is likely to become politically
polarised along pashtun and non-pashtun lines, if
the above happens. This will also puncture the
Afghan dream that the youth in particular believes
in terms of establishing an Afghan nation based on
a larger identity cutting across narrow ethnic and
tribal identities. The political instability would let
the Afghan youth down and hit them hard, than any
other sections of the society.
So, who will benefit out of the above
developments? Obviously, without firing a single
bullet and planning an ambush, Taliban would gain
considerably and in fact would cover the lost
ground in no time. Taliban, though weakened when
compared to the last decade, still have enough fire
power to wreck the process, especially in a
politically unstable situation. Taliban would bounce
back, not because of inherent strength, but
because of the failure of mainstream political
process and political consensus.
For the rest of the region, any Taliban ingress in
Afghanistan now leading towards an establishment of any form of government, even over a limited territory would imply two fanatic regimes in Iraq in the west and in Afghanistan in the east, forming a radical corridor. Such a development would neither be in the interest of Afghanistan, or in the rest of Asia. West Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and even parts of Western China (especially Xinjiang) would
face the reverberations of such a development.
It is imperative that the two Presidential candidates in Afghanistan get back to the political process and ensure that the audit takes place, thus increasing the credibility of the electoral process and infusing faith in the political path.
17 Jul 2014
THE PLAYBOY PRESIDENTS
Emmett Tyrrell
I have been vindicated! For years I have been
comparing the Clinton family to the family of
Warren Gamaliel Harding, our 29th president
and a president of dark memory at least to
most liberal historians. For me, Warren was
sheer slapstick, as to some degree his modern-
day equivalent was, Bill Clinton. And forget
not their gruesome wives.
I began my historical comparisons in the 1996
bestselling book, "Boy Clinton: The Political
Biography." For years, I punctuated my
syndicated column with references to the two
families. Then in my 2007 book, "The Clinton
Crack-Up," I clinched the comparison in a
reminder of how that Little Rock monstrosity,
the Clinton Library, compared so favorably
with the Harding Memorial in Warren's
hometown, Marion, Ohio. But now, you ask,
how am I vindicated? Well, America's
historical memory is not very strong.
Comparing Bill with a 1920s president to a
modern American audience was not easy. Yet,
by month's end it will be much easier. In fact,
the comparison will be inescapable.
On July 29, the Library of Congress is putting
on display a goldmine of romantic letters
Warren wrote his mistress from 1910 to 1920,
Carrie Fulton Phillips. He later had other gals,
most notably Nan Britton, while he was
president. Yet no letters from these affairs are
extant. The Phillips letters are voluminous and
very steamy. In fact, one cannot read them
without being reminded of Monica Lewinsky's
testimony in the Starr Report. They are that
salacious. Boy would Warren have had a good
time with Monica.
Of course, we only have Warren's
reminiscences of his recent assignations with
Mrs. Phillips, but that is enough to convey
what took place in a dark hotel room or under
an elm. He names his private part. I will
encourage my readers to attend the Library of
Congress exhibit by not betraying my
knowledge of it. He names Mrs. Phillips'
private parts while describing her other
physical attributes. It is my judgment as a
presidential historian that nothing quite like
the Harding letters have ever escaped from a
president's confidence, save the Lewinsky
testimony.
I am vindicated!
As I have written, the comparisons between
the Hardings and the Clintons are inescapable.
Both the Clintons and the Hardings came from
rural parts, albeit Harding had a more exalted
pedigree. Both couples included a clever,
assertive and forbidding wife who had
displayed above-average competence in
business and in politics. Both families were
compact; the Clintons had one daughter, the
Hardings had no children.
Both presidents were personable and charming
to the fair sex, whose nicely turned ankles
fetched their wandering eyes. When not boldly
at the helm of the ship of state, both
presidents vigorously pursued the masculine
pastimes of their day, golf and poker for
Harding, golf and jogging for Clinton.
Harding, of course, was less driven than the
Boy Governor of Arkansas and obviously more
dignified. He had a better tailor. He seemed to
age more gracefully and less abruptly in office
until he suffered a heart attack while in San
Francisco where he died. Then, too, while
alive Harding was freer of scandal. History
remembers Harding as an amiable bungler
whose scandals were revealed only upon his
death. Clinton's blunders began early and the
shadows of scandal crossed him earlier still.
Moreover there were witnesses to his
scandals, a lot of them.
Bill, aside from his scandals and pratfalls,
presided over a relatively prosperous and
peaceful presidency, owing in part to his
cooperation with Republicans, particularly
Newt Gingrich's House of Representatives.
Remember his boast that "the era of Big
Government is over"? Surprisingly, today we
recall Warren's presidency as prosperous and
peaceful, too. Amity Shlaes, in her book,
"Coolidge," recalls that he cut taxes, cut
federal spending, got the economy going again
and ended his predecessor Woodrow Wilson's
excessive regulation of the economy. Also he
endorsed African-Americans' rights.
So I am vindicated in my comparison of
Clinton and Harding, and one other thing. I
would welcome either of them back in the
White House today to replace Barack Obama,
who is not very funny.
I have been vindicated! For years I have been
comparing the Clinton family to the family of
Warren Gamaliel Harding, our 29th president
and a president of dark memory at least to
most liberal historians. For me, Warren was
sheer slapstick, as to some degree his modern-
day equivalent was, Bill Clinton. And forget
not their gruesome wives.
I began my historical comparisons in the 1996
bestselling book, "Boy Clinton: The Political
Biography." For years, I punctuated my
syndicated column with references to the two
families. Then in my 2007 book, "The Clinton
Crack-Up," I clinched the comparison in a
reminder of how that Little Rock monstrosity,
the Clinton Library, compared so favorably
with the Harding Memorial in Warren's
hometown, Marion, Ohio. But now, you ask,
how am I vindicated? Well, America's
historical memory is not very strong.
Comparing Bill with a 1920s president to a
modern American audience was not easy. Yet,
by month's end it will be much easier. In fact,
the comparison will be inescapable.
On July 29, the Library of Congress is putting
on display a goldmine of romantic letters
Warren wrote his mistress from 1910 to 1920,
Carrie Fulton Phillips. He later had other gals,
most notably Nan Britton, while he was
president. Yet no letters from these affairs are
extant. The Phillips letters are voluminous and
very steamy. In fact, one cannot read them
without being reminded of Monica Lewinsky's
testimony in the Starr Report. They are that
salacious. Boy would Warren have had a good
time with Monica.
Of course, we only have Warren's
reminiscences of his recent assignations with
Mrs. Phillips, but that is enough to convey
what took place in a dark hotel room or under
an elm. He names his private part. I will
encourage my readers to attend the Library of
Congress exhibit by not betraying my
knowledge of it. He names Mrs. Phillips'
private parts while describing her other
physical attributes. It is my judgment as a
presidential historian that nothing quite like
the Harding letters have ever escaped from a
president's confidence, save the Lewinsky
testimony.
I am vindicated!
As I have written, the comparisons between
the Hardings and the Clintons are inescapable.
Both the Clintons and the Hardings came from
rural parts, albeit Harding had a more exalted
pedigree. Both couples included a clever,
assertive and forbidding wife who had
displayed above-average competence in
business and in politics. Both families were
compact; the Clintons had one daughter, the
Hardings had no children.
Both presidents were personable and charming
to the fair sex, whose nicely turned ankles
fetched their wandering eyes. When not boldly
at the helm of the ship of state, both
presidents vigorously pursued the masculine
pastimes of their day, golf and poker for
Harding, golf and jogging for Clinton.
Harding, of course, was less driven than the
Boy Governor of Arkansas and obviously more
dignified. He had a better tailor. He seemed to
age more gracefully and less abruptly in office
until he suffered a heart attack while in San
Francisco where he died. Then, too, while
alive Harding was freer of scandal. History
remembers Harding as an amiable bungler
whose scandals were revealed only upon his
death. Clinton's blunders began early and the
shadows of scandal crossed him earlier still.
Moreover there were witnesses to his
scandals, a lot of them.
Bill, aside from his scandals and pratfalls,
presided over a relatively prosperous and
peaceful presidency, owing in part to his
cooperation with Republicans, particularly
Newt Gingrich's House of Representatives.
Remember his boast that "the era of Big
Government is over"? Surprisingly, today we
recall Warren's presidency as prosperous and
peaceful, too. Amity Shlaes, in her book,
"Coolidge," recalls that he cut taxes, cut
federal spending, got the economy going again
and ended his predecessor Woodrow Wilson's
excessive regulation of the economy. Also he
endorsed African-Americans' rights.
So I am vindicated in my comparison of
Clinton and Harding, and one other thing. I
would welcome either of them back in the
White House today to replace Barack Obama,
who is not very funny.
THE TURBULENT SUMMER OF 2014
Victor Hanson
The summer of 2014 will go down in history as
the season when America fell apart. Let's take
a tour of the disasters.
Germany in 2008 enthusiastically hosted
candidate Barack Obama for his so-called
"Victory Column" speech. Now, Germans
suddenly sound as if they are near-enemies of
the U.S. Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly
was furious that her cell phone was tapped by
American intelligence agents. She just kicked
the top CIA official out of Germany, further
enraged that the U.S. had recruited at least one
German official to provide intelligence on the
German government. Polls show that Germans
find Vladimir Putin's Russian tyranny almost as
popular as Barack Obama's America.
Japan is becoming similarly frustrated with the
U.S. It is rearming like crazy to confront an
aggressive China. Both Asian powers
apparently assume that Obama won't
guarantee the security of the Japanese as
America had in the past.
The Middle East is dissolving. Taking U.S.
peacekeepers out of Iraq proved a disaster.
The radical jihadists of ISIS are overrunning
Syria and Iraq, as they extend their destruction
even to the mute stones of religious
sanctuaries.
War looms between Israel and the Palestinians
as they exchange rockets and bombs. Older
Americans had an idea of what Afghanistan
will look like by 2016 after Obama announced
a pullout of all U.S. troops. They remember
Saigon of 1975 all too well.
Crimea has become a Russian satellite. The fate
of the Ukraine hangs in the balance. In
between his conquests, Russia's Putin openly
ridicules the impotence of the U.S. He is often
called to the Middle East on the perception
that he can address problems that America
runs away from.
From his sanctuary perch in Russia, National
Security Agency turncoat Edward Snowden is
once again releasing top-secret data that
shreds the credibility of the Obama
administration.
Foreign leaders don't trust the U.S. They are
baffled as to whether America is guilty of
incompetence in hiring such a roguish dropout
snoop in the first place, or guilty of cynically
spying on America's best friends -- or both.
The economy shrank last quarter. Record
numbers of adult Americans are still not
working. Zero interest rates have destroyed
the tradition of passbook savings and the very
idea of thrift.
No-interest financial policies ignited a
stampede to the stock market that has further
enriched the one-percenters -- an artificial
boom that everyone believes will soon bust.
The borrowing of $7 trillion has proved no
stimulus. A natural American recovery was
stymied by vast federal borrowing, by the
addition of more incomprehensible
regulations, and by an Obamacare package that
proved to be the opposite of almost everything
that was promised. Inflation is said to be
manageable, but only by not counting soaring
food, gas and electricity costs that do the most
to erode family budgets.
U.S. immigration law simply no longer exists.
Incoming foreign nationals more likely
welcome arrest than fear it. Tens of thousands
of newly arrived immigrants expect that the
cynical coalition of commercial interests,
ethnic activists and political operatives have
subverted existing federal law. America is now
wide open. Almost anyone can cross the border
and receive subsidized sanctuary. If you object,
you are a nativist, racist or xenophobe -- take
your pick.
No one denies that top IRS officials lost or
destroyed key documents concerning the
agency's election-time efforts to subvert
conservative organizations. The unbiased IRS
that we once knew has vanished. It has
become an appendage of the ruling
government that punishes enemies and
rewards friends -- and dodges a high-level
audit by lying in the same fashion as the tax
cheats it goes after.
Americans accept the fact that a video never
had anything to do with the killing of four
American officials in Benghazi and know that
the Obama administration knew precisely that
when it assured them otherwise.
No one has heard anything lately from Private
Bowe Bergdahl, who was traded for five of the
most dangerous jihadists the U.S. had in its
custody. The less we know about why
Bergdahl went AWOL, the administration
thinks, the better.
The scandals now come so fast and furiously
that we no sooner hear of one than yet
another new mess makes us forget it.
What keeps the country afloat this terrible
summer?
Some American companies produce more gas
and oil than ever despite, not because of, the
Obama administration. Most Americans still get
up every day, work hard and pay more taxes
than they receive in subsidies. American
soldiers remain the most formidable in the
world despite the confusion of their superiors.
The law, regardless of the administration, is
still followed by most. And most do not duck
out on their daily responsibilities to golf, play
pool or go on junkets.
It is still a hard thing to derail America in a
summer -- but then again, we have a long way
to go until fall.
The summer of 2014 will go down in history as
the season when America fell apart. Let's take
a tour of the disasters.
Germany in 2008 enthusiastically hosted
candidate Barack Obama for his so-called
"Victory Column" speech. Now, Germans
suddenly sound as if they are near-enemies of
the U.S. Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly
was furious that her cell phone was tapped by
American intelligence agents. She just kicked
the top CIA official out of Germany, further
enraged that the U.S. had recruited at least one
German official to provide intelligence on the
German government. Polls show that Germans
find Vladimir Putin's Russian tyranny almost as
popular as Barack Obama's America.
Japan is becoming similarly frustrated with the
U.S. It is rearming like crazy to confront an
aggressive China. Both Asian powers
apparently assume that Obama won't
guarantee the security of the Japanese as
America had in the past.
The Middle East is dissolving. Taking U.S.
peacekeepers out of Iraq proved a disaster.
The radical jihadists of ISIS are overrunning
Syria and Iraq, as they extend their destruction
even to the mute stones of religious
sanctuaries.
War looms between Israel and the Palestinians
as they exchange rockets and bombs. Older
Americans had an idea of what Afghanistan
will look like by 2016 after Obama announced
a pullout of all U.S. troops. They remember
Saigon of 1975 all too well.
Crimea has become a Russian satellite. The fate
of the Ukraine hangs in the balance. In
between his conquests, Russia's Putin openly
ridicules the impotence of the U.S. He is often
called to the Middle East on the perception
that he can address problems that America
runs away from.
From his sanctuary perch in Russia, National
Security Agency turncoat Edward Snowden is
once again releasing top-secret data that
shreds the credibility of the Obama
administration.
Foreign leaders don't trust the U.S. They are
baffled as to whether America is guilty of
incompetence in hiring such a roguish dropout
snoop in the first place, or guilty of cynically
spying on America's best friends -- or both.
The economy shrank last quarter. Record
numbers of adult Americans are still not
working. Zero interest rates have destroyed
the tradition of passbook savings and the very
idea of thrift.
No-interest financial policies ignited a
stampede to the stock market that has further
enriched the one-percenters -- an artificial
boom that everyone believes will soon bust.
The borrowing of $7 trillion has proved no
stimulus. A natural American recovery was
stymied by vast federal borrowing, by the
addition of more incomprehensible
regulations, and by an Obamacare package that
proved to be the opposite of almost everything
that was promised. Inflation is said to be
manageable, but only by not counting soaring
food, gas and electricity costs that do the most
to erode family budgets.
U.S. immigration law simply no longer exists.
Incoming foreign nationals more likely
welcome arrest than fear it. Tens of thousands
of newly arrived immigrants expect that the
cynical coalition of commercial interests,
ethnic activists and political operatives have
subverted existing federal law. America is now
wide open. Almost anyone can cross the border
and receive subsidized sanctuary. If you object,
you are a nativist, racist or xenophobe -- take
your pick.
No one denies that top IRS officials lost or
destroyed key documents concerning the
agency's election-time efforts to subvert
conservative organizations. The unbiased IRS
that we once knew has vanished. It has
become an appendage of the ruling
government that punishes enemies and
rewards friends -- and dodges a high-level
audit by lying in the same fashion as the tax
cheats it goes after.
Americans accept the fact that a video never
had anything to do with the killing of four
American officials in Benghazi and know that
the Obama administration knew precisely that
when it assured them otherwise.
No one has heard anything lately from Private
Bowe Bergdahl, who was traded for five of the
most dangerous jihadists the U.S. had in its
custody. The less we know about why
Bergdahl went AWOL, the administration
thinks, the better.
The scandals now come so fast and furiously
that we no sooner hear of one than yet
another new mess makes us forget it.
What keeps the country afloat this terrible
summer?
Some American companies produce more gas
and oil than ever despite, not because of, the
Obama administration. Most Americans still get
up every day, work hard and pay more taxes
than they receive in subsidies. American
soldiers remain the most formidable in the
world despite the confusion of their superiors.
The law, regardless of the administration, is
still followed by most. And most do not duck
out on their daily responsibilities to golf, play
pool or go on junkets.
It is still a hard thing to derail America in a
summer -- but then again, we have a long way
to go until fall.
INDIA - US: NUCLEAR AYATOLLAHS AND THE POLITICS OF NON-PROLIFERATION
Gurmeel Kanwal
In a completely partisan and somewhat
condescending editorial in early-July 2014, The
New York Times wrote: “If India wants to be part of the nuclear suppliers group, it needs to sign the treaty that prohibits nuclear testing, stop producing fissile material, and begin talks with its rivals on nuclear weapons containment.” The editorial is sharply critical of and vehemently opposes India’s efforts to acquire membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). It bases its criticism on a report by IHS Jane’s that India is in the process of enhancing its capacity to enrich uranium – ostensibly to power the nuclear reactors
on the INS Arihant and future SSBNs, but much in excess of the requirement. This, the editorial says, is causing anxiety to the Pakistanis and has raised the spectre of an arms race in Southern Asia.
It is obvious that the editorial writer understands
neither the background to nor the present context
of India’s nuclear deterrence. As stated in a letter
written by then Prime Minister AB Vajpayee to US
President Bill Clinton after India’s nuclear tests at
Pokhran in May 1998 (in an unfriendly act, the
letter was leaked to the media by the White House),
the primary reason for India’s acquisition of
nuclear weapons was the existential threat posed
by two nuclear-armed states on India’s borders
with both of which India had fought wars over
territorial disputes. The China-Pakistan nuclear
and missile nexus, including the clandestine
transfer of technology from China to Pakistan, has
irrevocably changed the strategic balance in
Southern Asia by helping Pakistan to neutralise
India’s superiority in conventional forces and has
helped Pakistan to wage a proxy war under its
nuclear umbrella.
Since then, the nuclear environment in Southern
Asia has been further destabilised. China’s ASAT
(anti-satellite weapons) test, BMD (ballistic missile
defence) programme, efforts aimed at acquiring
MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry
vehicle) capability and ambiguity in its no first use
(NFU) commitment, while simultaneously rapidly
modernising the PLA (People’s Liberation Army)
and its efforts to establish a ‘string of pearls’ by
way of ports in the Indian Ocean, are a cause for
concern for India. Similarly, Pakistan is engaged in
the acquisition of ‘full spectrum’ nuclear capability,
including a triad and tactical nuclear weapons
(TNWs), which invariably lower the threshold of
use. Pakistan has stockpiled a larger number of
nuclear warheads (100 to 110) than India (80 to
90) and is continuing to add to its numbers as it
has been given unsafeguarded nuclear reactors by
China. In view of several mujahideen attacks on
Pakistan’s armed forces’ establishments during the
last few years, there is apprehension in the
international community, entirely justified, that
some of Pakistan’s nuclear warheads could fall
into jihadi hands.
Some statements made by IHS Jane’s in its report
are factually incorrect. The research group has
assessed that the new Indian uranium enrichment
facility at the Indian Rare Metals Plant near Mysore
would enhance India's ability to produce ‘weapons-
grade’ uranium to twice the amount needed for its
planned nuclear-powered SSBN fleet. The report
does not say how the research group arrived at this
deduction. Also, the nuclear power reactors of
SSBNs require uranium to be enriched only up to
30 to 40 per cent. Weapons-grade uranium must
be enriched to levels over 90 per cent.
For the record, the Government of India has denied
reports that it is ‘covertly’ expanding its nuclear
arsenal. An Indian official told The Hindu (Atul
Aneja, “India trashes report on covert nuclear
facility,” 22 June 2014) that the report was
“mischievously timed” as it came just before a
meeting of the NSG. He said, “It is interesting that
such reports questioning India’s nuclear credentials
are planted at regular intervals.”
The US Government also dismissed the report (“US
dismisses report on India covertly increasing
nukes”, The Hindu , 21 June 2014) as “highly
speculative.” The US State Department
Spokesperson said, “We remain fully committed to
the terms of the 123 agreement and to enhancing
our strategic relationship. Nothing we provide to
India under the civ-nuke agreement may be used
to enhance India’s military capability or add to its
military stockpile…”
The Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement of
2005 gives an exemption to India’s nuclear
weapons facilities and stockpiles of nuclear
weapons fuel from inspections by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and India is at liberty
to set up additional military facilities using
unsafeguarded materials if these are considered
necessary. India has agreed to bring 14 nuclear
power reactors under international safeguards.
Eight military facilities, including reactors,
enrichment and reprocessing facilities and three
heavy water reactors will remain out of the purview
of IAEA safeguards.
India has been a responsible nuclear power and
has a positive record on non-proliferation. India
has consistently supported total nuclear
disarmament and is in favour of negotiations for
the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). Non-
proliferation ayatollahs should channelise their
efforts towards identifying and shaming the real
proliferators.
In a completely partisan and somewhat
condescending editorial in early-July 2014, The
New York Times wrote: “If India wants to be part of the nuclear suppliers group, it needs to sign the treaty that prohibits nuclear testing, stop producing fissile material, and begin talks with its rivals on nuclear weapons containment.” The editorial is sharply critical of and vehemently opposes India’s efforts to acquire membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). It bases its criticism on a report by IHS Jane’s that India is in the process of enhancing its capacity to enrich uranium – ostensibly to power the nuclear reactors
on the INS Arihant and future SSBNs, but much in excess of the requirement. This, the editorial says, is causing anxiety to the Pakistanis and has raised the spectre of an arms race in Southern Asia.
It is obvious that the editorial writer understands
neither the background to nor the present context
of India’s nuclear deterrence. As stated in a letter
written by then Prime Minister AB Vajpayee to US
President Bill Clinton after India’s nuclear tests at
Pokhran in May 1998 (in an unfriendly act, the
letter was leaked to the media by the White House),
the primary reason for India’s acquisition of
nuclear weapons was the existential threat posed
by two nuclear-armed states on India’s borders
with both of which India had fought wars over
territorial disputes. The China-Pakistan nuclear
and missile nexus, including the clandestine
transfer of technology from China to Pakistan, has
irrevocably changed the strategic balance in
Southern Asia by helping Pakistan to neutralise
India’s superiority in conventional forces and has
helped Pakistan to wage a proxy war under its
nuclear umbrella.
Since then, the nuclear environment in Southern
Asia has been further destabilised. China’s ASAT
(anti-satellite weapons) test, BMD (ballistic missile
defence) programme, efforts aimed at acquiring
MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry
vehicle) capability and ambiguity in its no first use
(NFU) commitment, while simultaneously rapidly
modernising the PLA (People’s Liberation Army)
and its efforts to establish a ‘string of pearls’ by
way of ports in the Indian Ocean, are a cause for
concern for India. Similarly, Pakistan is engaged in
the acquisition of ‘full spectrum’ nuclear capability,
including a triad and tactical nuclear weapons
(TNWs), which invariably lower the threshold of
use. Pakistan has stockpiled a larger number of
nuclear warheads (100 to 110) than India (80 to
90) and is continuing to add to its numbers as it
has been given unsafeguarded nuclear reactors by
China. In view of several mujahideen attacks on
Pakistan’s armed forces’ establishments during the
last few years, there is apprehension in the
international community, entirely justified, that
some of Pakistan’s nuclear warheads could fall
into jihadi hands.
Some statements made by IHS Jane’s in its report
are factually incorrect. The research group has
assessed that the new Indian uranium enrichment
facility at the Indian Rare Metals Plant near Mysore
would enhance India's ability to produce ‘weapons-
grade’ uranium to twice the amount needed for its
planned nuclear-powered SSBN fleet. The report
does not say how the research group arrived at this
deduction. Also, the nuclear power reactors of
SSBNs require uranium to be enriched only up to
30 to 40 per cent. Weapons-grade uranium must
be enriched to levels over 90 per cent.
For the record, the Government of India has denied
reports that it is ‘covertly’ expanding its nuclear
arsenal. An Indian official told The Hindu (Atul
Aneja, “India trashes report on covert nuclear
facility,” 22 June 2014) that the report was
“mischievously timed” as it came just before a
meeting of the NSG. He said, “It is interesting that
such reports questioning India’s nuclear credentials
are planted at regular intervals.”
The US Government also dismissed the report (“US
dismisses report on India covertly increasing
nukes”, The Hindu , 21 June 2014) as “highly
speculative.” The US State Department
Spokesperson said, “We remain fully committed to
the terms of the 123 agreement and to enhancing
our strategic relationship. Nothing we provide to
India under the civ-nuke agreement may be used
to enhance India’s military capability or add to its
military stockpile…”
The Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement of
2005 gives an exemption to India’s nuclear
weapons facilities and stockpiles of nuclear
weapons fuel from inspections by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and India is at liberty
to set up additional military facilities using
unsafeguarded materials if these are considered
necessary. India has agreed to bring 14 nuclear
power reactors under international safeguards.
Eight military facilities, including reactors,
enrichment and reprocessing facilities and three
heavy water reactors will remain out of the purview
of IAEA safeguards.
India has been a responsible nuclear power and
has a positive record on non-proliferation. India
has consistently supported total nuclear
disarmament and is in favour of negotiations for
the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). Non-
proliferation ayatollahs should channelise their
efforts towards identifying and shaming the real
proliferators.
FEDERALISM AND NEPAL: INTERNAL DIFFERENCES
Pramod Jaiswal
The constitutional debate in Nepal has bene caught up in peculiar twists and turns ever since late 1940s. So far, Nepal has had six constitutions, at different points in time, and the debate to get an acceptable constitution for long-term social peace and stability continues.
Why have constitution debates been unable to
bring social peace and political stability in Nepal?
Why have federalism debates in Nepal been so
polarised that Constituent Assembly (CA) I was
dissolved and elections to CA II were held to draft a constitution? There are two simple questions to deconstruct the question of federalism in Nepal.
First, why do historically marginalised communities
(Madhesis, Janjatis, dalits etc) that constitute
almost 70 per cent of the Nepal’s population
strongly sympathise with federalism? Why are the
Caste of High Hill Elites (CHHE) (Brahmins and
Chettri etc) who are dominant in Kathmandu’s
power structure are oppose federalism in its true
spirit and agreed on a federal model of governance
only after the large-scale Madhesi movement in
2007?
Why is the Federalism Narrative So Dominant In
Nepal?
Nepal has been monolithic, upper caste hill-centric
dominance of one language, culture, and an
extremely centralised power structure of
governance throughout history. However, the
diversity in languages, cultures and a sense of
belongingness that exists in Nepal has not been
given due recognition; and the State’s
discrimination and exclusionary policies triggered
a sense of deep dissatisfaction among the
historically marginalised community.
In this context, on the basis of ‘unity in diversity’,
federalism narratives gained prominence to
institutionalise self-rule, autonomy, and dignity in
the country. This brings us to the debate of
‘identity–based’ federalism that is largely the
politics for recognition of diversity in Nepal for
these communities.
What are the Technicalities of the Federalism
Debate?
The debate on federalism has become one of the
most contentious issues in Nepal. This polarised
debate is approached via various perspectives,
such as: change (pro-identity based federalism)
Vs. status quo forces (federalism on the basis of
viability); pluralist Vs. Mono-culturalist;
historically marginalised communities Vs. upper
caste hill dominance; and political de-
centralisation Vs. administrative de-centralisation.
By and large, the new political forces that emerged
in Nepal after the promulgation of the 1990
constitution – like Maoists and various political
parties that arose from social movements of
Madhesis, Janjatis etc. – associate themselves
with the former while traditional parties like Nepali
Congress and CPN-UML associate themselves with
latter categories.
This brings us to the technical debate on
federalism, that, on the basis of the ‘Committee on
State Restructuring and Allocation of State Powers’
during CA I agreed upon – “Identity based
Federalism” and “viability,” i.e., on the basis of
economic capability. There are five indicators for
“Identity” – ethnicity, language, culture, geography
and regional continuity, and historical identities
( historically subjected to discrimination in various
forms in their homeland). The “viability” has four
indicators – economic interrelationships and
capability; status and potential for infrastructural
development; availability of natural resources; and
administrative feasibility.
Complexities of the Federalism Issues in Nepal
The technical details are no less complex, adding
complexities to the issues in the federalism debate.
However, there exist battles of narratives regarding
the debate on federalism. It is alleged that the
status quo forces try to obfuscate the federalism
debate to benefit the CHHE and curve out federal
lines of a new Nepal in ways that give
demographic advantage to ruling elites and
maintain dominance in Kathmandu’s power
structures. Conversely, the status quo forces allege
that the pro-identity-based federal forces support
single identity ethnic based federalism. However,
Nepal is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual nation and it
is not possible to have a majority of any single
ethic group in any model of federalism. The only
difference that adds complexities is the devolution
of power from dominant elite’s high hill castes to
pave Nepal’s transition towards inclusive
citizenship and recognition of marginalised
communities, identities, culture and self-rule.
Perhaps, the buck stops at the top leaders of the
political parties in Nepal who are all traditionally
ruling high-caste Brahmins to strike constitutional
agreement. And, the rationale choice has to be
made on ways to delegate power from the hill
upper caste elites to the people who have been
historically marginalised and such choices are
more difficult given how CA I winners are losers in
CA II elections.
Is Nepal Postponing the Inevitable?
Nepali politics is in transition and fast-changing its
state characteristics from a monarchy to a
republic; a Hindu state to a secular one; and a
unitary structure towards an inclusive federal
model of governance. The CA I postponed
federalism issues for the CA II despite marginalised
communities united and had adequate support
base of 2/3rd majority – that includes the
aspiration of identity and viability model of
federalism denouncing 14 state models of federal governance.
If Nepal postpones the identity criterion of
federalism, the constitutional debate will be likely to be endless – merely postponing the social peace and stability. The constitution is the document of
compromise and the debate to make the new Nepal inclusive must ensure the aspiration of historically marginalised people towards making the people equal, and simultaneously not making them unequal via federalism.
The constitutional debate in Nepal has bene caught up in peculiar twists and turns ever since late 1940s. So far, Nepal has had six constitutions, at different points in time, and the debate to get an acceptable constitution for long-term social peace and stability continues.
Why have constitution debates been unable to
bring social peace and political stability in Nepal?
Why have federalism debates in Nepal been so
polarised that Constituent Assembly (CA) I was
dissolved and elections to CA II were held to draft a constitution? There are two simple questions to deconstruct the question of federalism in Nepal.
First, why do historically marginalised communities
(Madhesis, Janjatis, dalits etc) that constitute
almost 70 per cent of the Nepal’s population
strongly sympathise with federalism? Why are the
Caste of High Hill Elites (CHHE) (Brahmins and
Chettri etc) who are dominant in Kathmandu’s
power structure are oppose federalism in its true
spirit and agreed on a federal model of governance
only after the large-scale Madhesi movement in
2007?
Why is the Federalism Narrative So Dominant In
Nepal?
Nepal has been monolithic, upper caste hill-centric
dominance of one language, culture, and an
extremely centralised power structure of
governance throughout history. However, the
diversity in languages, cultures and a sense of
belongingness that exists in Nepal has not been
given due recognition; and the State’s
discrimination and exclusionary policies triggered
a sense of deep dissatisfaction among the
historically marginalised community.
In this context, on the basis of ‘unity in diversity’,
federalism narratives gained prominence to
institutionalise self-rule, autonomy, and dignity in
the country. This brings us to the debate of
‘identity–based’ federalism that is largely the
politics for recognition of diversity in Nepal for
these communities.
What are the Technicalities of the Federalism
Debate?
The debate on federalism has become one of the
most contentious issues in Nepal. This polarised
debate is approached via various perspectives,
such as: change (pro-identity based federalism)
Vs. status quo forces (federalism on the basis of
viability); pluralist Vs. Mono-culturalist;
historically marginalised communities Vs. upper
caste hill dominance; and political de-
centralisation Vs. administrative de-centralisation.
By and large, the new political forces that emerged
in Nepal after the promulgation of the 1990
constitution – like Maoists and various political
parties that arose from social movements of
Madhesis, Janjatis etc. – associate themselves
with the former while traditional parties like Nepali
Congress and CPN-UML associate themselves with
latter categories.
This brings us to the technical debate on
federalism, that, on the basis of the ‘Committee on
State Restructuring and Allocation of State Powers’
during CA I agreed upon – “Identity based
Federalism” and “viability,” i.e., on the basis of
economic capability. There are five indicators for
“Identity” – ethnicity, language, culture, geography
and regional continuity, and historical identities
( historically subjected to discrimination in various
forms in their homeland). The “viability” has four
indicators – economic interrelationships and
capability; status and potential for infrastructural
development; availability of natural resources; and
administrative feasibility.
Complexities of the Federalism Issues in Nepal
The technical details are no less complex, adding
complexities to the issues in the federalism debate.
However, there exist battles of narratives regarding
the debate on federalism. It is alleged that the
status quo forces try to obfuscate the federalism
debate to benefit the CHHE and curve out federal
lines of a new Nepal in ways that give
demographic advantage to ruling elites and
maintain dominance in Kathmandu’s power
structures. Conversely, the status quo forces allege
that the pro-identity-based federal forces support
single identity ethnic based federalism. However,
Nepal is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual nation and it
is not possible to have a majority of any single
ethic group in any model of federalism. The only
difference that adds complexities is the devolution
of power from dominant elite’s high hill castes to
pave Nepal’s transition towards inclusive
citizenship and recognition of marginalised
communities, identities, culture and self-rule.
Perhaps, the buck stops at the top leaders of the
political parties in Nepal who are all traditionally
ruling high-caste Brahmins to strike constitutional
agreement. And, the rationale choice has to be
made on ways to delegate power from the hill
upper caste elites to the people who have been
historically marginalised and such choices are
more difficult given how CA I winners are losers in
CA II elections.
Is Nepal Postponing the Inevitable?
Nepali politics is in transition and fast-changing its
state characteristics from a monarchy to a
republic; a Hindu state to a secular one; and a
unitary structure towards an inclusive federal
model of governance. The CA I postponed
federalism issues for the CA II despite marginalised
communities united and had adequate support
base of 2/3rd majority – that includes the
aspiration of identity and viability model of
federalism denouncing 14 state models of federal governance.
If Nepal postpones the identity criterion of
federalism, the constitutional debate will be likely to be endless – merely postponing the social peace and stability. The constitution is the document of
compromise and the debate to make the new Nepal inclusive must ensure the aspiration of historically marginalised people towards making the people equal, and simultaneously not making them unequal via federalism.
16 Jul 2014
REAL AND MISGUIDED COMPASSION
Robert Knight
TURNER, MAINE -- They say the South is the
friendliest place in America, and they’re
probably right. The Midwest isn’t far behind,
but the civility line defies latitudes or
longitudes.
It comes down roughly to the difference
between city and country folk – although
exceptions abound. Across the USA and
Canada, I’ve found that people outside core
metropolitan areas are much more likely to
initiate or respond to friendly entreaties.
On my family’s recent trip back to the D.C.
area from Western Maine, we stopped at a
supermarket in Turner (population: 5,700) to
get a case of Moxie, but became stranded with
a dead battery.
Within 45 minutes, with our hood up, we were
approached six times by people who offered to
help, including an angel named Tammy who
operated a café a couple of miles away. She
not only gave us phone numbers for three
mechanics, but offered to come back and
personally bring us and two dogs to her café
to spend the day if the car problem was a
lengthy event.
A woman who worked at the supermarket
tried unsuccessfully to jump start us. Others
came by after she left and offered the same.
This doesn’t count those who passed by and
gave inquiring looks that said, “we’re here to
help if you need it.” In Maine, there’s an
understanding that it’s best not to talk unless
you can improve on silence. A sound idea, that.
I thought about the overarching concept of
how you treat strangers while we waited for
AAA to get us back on the road. The Bible is
clear about caring for strangers, the poor,
orphans and widows. It is not a mandate for
mass migration over an unsecured border.
Using my smartphone, I read the latest
accounts of the Texas border crisis. Some well-
meaning folks have, I believe, misapplied the
biblical idea of hospitality to justify the lawless
surge of tens of thousands of illegal aliens,
mostly young Central Americans.
It’s creating a massive headache for an
overwhelmed system and is costing lives.
Heart-wrenching tales of rape, crime and
death in the desert are seeping through the
media’s rose-colored lens.
Instead of securing the border and
repatriation, President Obama is asking
Congress for a quick $3.7 billion in taxpayer
money for lawyers and schooling to “ease the
crisis” that he manufactured by suspending
deportation of “dreamers” in 2012. He also
sent a powerful signal by turning loose the
Justice Department on states like Arizona that
are trying to do what the feds won’t – enforce
the law.
Although drug smugglers, criminals and
perhaps terrorists are taking advantage of the
legal anarchy, the vast majority are poor
people seeking a better life. Only a heart of
stone would feel no twinge of compassion.
But, as with legal precedents, hard cases make
bad laws. Without concern for consequences,
seemingly compassionate actions can harm
more than help.
A friend who goes to Africa to assist
missionaries in relieving poverty and sharing
the Gospel told me that some actions by the
U.S. government and even private
philanthropic groups make things worse. A
case in point is dumping food into drought-
stricken areas dotted with hardscrabble
farmers. If it isn’t handled right, the farmers
go out of business, and famine returns with a
vengeance.
It’s not enough to feel good about doing good;
we’re responsible for seeing that we help
more than hurt. The late, great Michael
Schwartz, a conservative, pro-life activist,
gave me a lesson in this one day as we walked
to lunch from the Heritage Foundation, where
I worked at the time.
Although we had a narrow window, Mike
stopped when a homeless man approached us
to panhandle. Instead of rushing by, Mike
patiently talked with him, but turned down
repeated requests for money. It was obvious
the man wanted to buy another bottle. Mike
took him to a nearby café and bought him
some food.
As we walked back from our own lunch, Mike
railed at the inhumanity of the welfare system;
how it robs people of their charitable impulses
and hurts the poor at the same time. Jesus, he
explained, cared enough to set people on the
right path, not lead them astray to make
Himself feel good. Mike had let the homeless
man know that he, the sandwich buyer, was
merely a vehicle for the love of God. Mike
hoped the man would realize his own worth
and perhaps find the strength to take a
different path.
Kindness is catching. The sheer decency of the
people in that Maine parking lot left us feeling
blessed instead of delayed. They wanted to
help us get back on the road, not keep us
dependent on their largesse.
The obvious, though not easy, answer to the
man-made disaster unfolding in Texas is to
secure the border and ship back the illegal
immigrants as humanely as possible. It begins
with re-establishing the rule of law, without
which more misery will flourish.
We can’t solve all the world’s problems, but
we can surely make them worse with
misguided compassion.
TURNER, MAINE -- They say the South is the
friendliest place in America, and they’re
probably right. The Midwest isn’t far behind,
but the civility line defies latitudes or
longitudes.
It comes down roughly to the difference
between city and country folk – although
exceptions abound. Across the USA and
Canada, I’ve found that people outside core
metropolitan areas are much more likely to
initiate or respond to friendly entreaties.
On my family’s recent trip back to the D.C.
area from Western Maine, we stopped at a
supermarket in Turner (population: 5,700) to
get a case of Moxie, but became stranded with
a dead battery.
Within 45 minutes, with our hood up, we were
approached six times by people who offered to
help, including an angel named Tammy who
operated a café a couple of miles away. She
not only gave us phone numbers for three
mechanics, but offered to come back and
personally bring us and two dogs to her café
to spend the day if the car problem was a
lengthy event.
A woman who worked at the supermarket
tried unsuccessfully to jump start us. Others
came by after she left and offered the same.
This doesn’t count those who passed by and
gave inquiring looks that said, “we’re here to
help if you need it.” In Maine, there’s an
understanding that it’s best not to talk unless
you can improve on silence. A sound idea, that.
I thought about the overarching concept of
how you treat strangers while we waited for
AAA to get us back on the road. The Bible is
clear about caring for strangers, the poor,
orphans and widows. It is not a mandate for
mass migration over an unsecured border.
Using my smartphone, I read the latest
accounts of the Texas border crisis. Some well-
meaning folks have, I believe, misapplied the
biblical idea of hospitality to justify the lawless
surge of tens of thousands of illegal aliens,
mostly young Central Americans.
It’s creating a massive headache for an
overwhelmed system and is costing lives.
Heart-wrenching tales of rape, crime and
death in the desert are seeping through the
media’s rose-colored lens.
Instead of securing the border and
repatriation, President Obama is asking
Congress for a quick $3.7 billion in taxpayer
money for lawyers and schooling to “ease the
crisis” that he manufactured by suspending
deportation of “dreamers” in 2012. He also
sent a powerful signal by turning loose the
Justice Department on states like Arizona that
are trying to do what the feds won’t – enforce
the law.
Although drug smugglers, criminals and
perhaps terrorists are taking advantage of the
legal anarchy, the vast majority are poor
people seeking a better life. Only a heart of
stone would feel no twinge of compassion.
But, as with legal precedents, hard cases make
bad laws. Without concern for consequences,
seemingly compassionate actions can harm
more than help.
A friend who goes to Africa to assist
missionaries in relieving poverty and sharing
the Gospel told me that some actions by the
U.S. government and even private
philanthropic groups make things worse. A
case in point is dumping food into drought-
stricken areas dotted with hardscrabble
farmers. If it isn’t handled right, the farmers
go out of business, and famine returns with a
vengeance.
It’s not enough to feel good about doing good;
we’re responsible for seeing that we help
more than hurt. The late, great Michael
Schwartz, a conservative, pro-life activist,
gave me a lesson in this one day as we walked
to lunch from the Heritage Foundation, where
I worked at the time.
Although we had a narrow window, Mike
stopped when a homeless man approached us
to panhandle. Instead of rushing by, Mike
patiently talked with him, but turned down
repeated requests for money. It was obvious
the man wanted to buy another bottle. Mike
took him to a nearby café and bought him
some food.
As we walked back from our own lunch, Mike
railed at the inhumanity of the welfare system;
how it robs people of their charitable impulses
and hurts the poor at the same time. Jesus, he
explained, cared enough to set people on the
right path, not lead them astray to make
Himself feel good. Mike had let the homeless
man know that he, the sandwich buyer, was
merely a vehicle for the love of God. Mike
hoped the man would realize his own worth
and perhaps find the strength to take a
different path.
Kindness is catching. The sheer decency of the
people in that Maine parking lot left us feeling
blessed instead of delayed. They wanted to
help us get back on the road, not keep us
dependent on their largesse.
The obvious, though not easy, answer to the
man-made disaster unfolding in Texas is to
secure the border and ship back the illegal
immigrants as humanely as possible. It begins
with re-establishing the rule of law, without
which more misery will flourish.
We can’t solve all the world’s problems, but
we can surely make them worse with
misguided compassion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)